1. Client's Crisis

After painstakingly securing a commercial unit and lawfully obtaining designation as a 'tobacco retailer' from the district office while preparing to open a new business, an unexpected crisis came to the client.

A neighboring existing tobacco retailer filed an administrative lawsuit against the district office seeking revocation of the designation, claiming that "the distance between the two stores falls short of the statutory standard of 50 meters." The other side even went so far as to partially demolish a structure in front of its own store in an attempt to reduce the measured distance. Faced with the prospect of losing overnight the right to sell tobacco, its core source of revenue, if the case was lost, the client urgently came to Law Firm Exist.

2. Key Issue

The issue in this case was a single one, focused on **'how the distance between the two stores should be measured'**. A tobacco retailer's business premises must be at least 50 meters apart, and the key question was what 기준 to use when measuring the 'shortest distance' on a back street where sidewalks and roadways are not separated.

The other side arbitrarily interpreted the ordinance and advanced two forced measurement methods. One was a physical straight-line distance passing through obstacles between the stores (about 46 meters); the other was an abnormal route that illegally crossed the roadway diagonally (about 48 meters). Either way, the intention was to produce a result under 50 meters.

3. Exist's Strategy

Attorney Partner Sangjin Park confronted head-on the fact that the other side's measurement method ignored the ordinary safety of pedestrians and was nothing more than a forced argument.

First, by thoroughly analyzing the on-site survey appraisal results and drawings, we proved that there were obstacles blocking pedestrian passage between the two stores, such as a car center parking lot and a restaurant aquarium, making it impossible to walk in a straight line. We objectively showed that the 'straight-line distance' claimed by the other side was in reality only a hypothetical distance that no person could actually walk.

Furthermore, based on the relevant legal principles, we meticulously argued that on a back street used by vehicles, the only lawful and ordinary shortest-route method of crossing under the Road Traffic Act is to cross the road at a 'right angle,' not diagonally, which carries a high risk of accidents. The strategy focused on establishing the vague ordinance phrase 'shortest distance' as an objective standard the court could accept.

4. Result and Recovery

The court accepted Law Firm Exist's legal interpretation and held that on a back street, the lawful measurement standard is a 'right-angle crossing' method rather than a diagonal one. Applying this standard, the distance between the two stores was confirmed to be at least 51 meters, satisfying the statutory standard (50 meters), and the other side's claim was entirely dismissed.

After about 11 months of litigation, the client completely protected the valuable business right, even shifting the litigation costs to the other side. This was a case in which a client whose means of livelihood had been threatened by a rival store's unreasonable lawsuit was able to return to running the business with peace of mind.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting a specialist, as the outcome may vary depending on the specific facts of the case.

Responsible attorney: Attorney Partner Sangjin Park

This case has been partially de-identified to protect confidentiality, within a range that does not undermine the substance of the case.