1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are all included in the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. As cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of “A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense” included a summary of the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, among the 2 pages 6 to 5 pages 14 in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The phrase “(a)” shall be added to the part added or used in addition, 3 pages 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance after “Article 12(2)2.”

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “1) whether the instant notification is disposed of” from 5 pages 7 to 8 pages 10, i.e., “(b).”

Judgment

1) The term "administrative disposition", which is subject to appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency's public law, which directly causes changes in the specific rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the creation of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with regard to a specific matter, as an act of an administrative agency, and an act which does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification inside the administrative agency, cannot be subject to appeal litigation

(B) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant notification is merely an act of notification made in the sense that the Plaintiff lost its status as a superstore manager, and cannot be deemed an act of directly changing the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations or legal status. (See, e.g., Article 6 of the Addenda to the Distribution Industry Development Act, at the time of the enforcement of the amended Act, is a report made in accordance with the amended Act for a person who reported as a superstore manager pursuant to the previous provision. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du41729, Feb. 14, 2019).