(b) Whether the revocation of the business license of the abandoned place without obtaining permission for changing the place of business is appropriate.

B. If the provisions of Article 3 of the former Recreation Business Act (amended by Act No. 3729 of Apr. 10, 1984), Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are gathered to grant permission for the business of a place of a place of a business, which is subject to objective elements such as the content and condition of the goods, etc., and the location of the place of business and the size of the facilities are subject to the permission. Thus, in a case where the business facilities installed in the original permitted place of business are transferred to a new place of business and become unable to perform the permitted business functions any longer at the original place of business, the permission already becomes null and void as it becomes impossible to achieve its purpose, and thus, the permission is revoked in the sense that the permission is withdrawn.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the following facts: (a) the defendant had granted permission for each electronic recreation place business as shown in the attached list at the time of original adjudication to the plaintiffs; (b) had cancelled the above business permission on the ground that the plaintiffs violated Article 3 of the Recreation Business Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and moved the business without permission, and (c) previously applied for permission to the defendant before changing the business place to the above transfer place; (d) the defendant applied for permission to change the business place before December 30, 1982 to the above transfer place; (e) the above electronic recreation place contains a speculative spirit and an economic waste as stated in the attached list at the time of original adjudication, and (e) had no effect on the change of the above business place, and (e) had no effect on the change of the business place without permission, and (e) had no effect on the grounds of cancellation or cancellation of the previous permission as stated in the above Article 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Act.

2. However, since the business permission of this case is not an act of establishing the right of operation of a place of business, but an act of restoring the business's possession to cancel the general prohibition, its business profit is limited to anti-private interest. The cancellation or re-cancellation of the prohibition of operation in light of the essence of the administrative act is a discretionary act of the administrative agency concerned according to the public interest and harmony purpose. Meanwhile, the person who wishes to obtain a business permission of a place of business should submit an application stating especially the location of the place of business, the type of business, and the outline of the structure and equipment to obtain permission of the competent administrative agency, and if the above change is intended, the permission of the business permission of this case should be obtained by the competent administrative agency. Thus, the business permission of this case is a substitute permission for the object of objective elements such as the contents and condition of the goods, which constitutes the object of the business permission of this case, and thus, the business permission of this case's place of business is limited to anti-private interest, and the cancellation or re-cancellation of the prohibition is deemed as a discretionary act of the administrative agency concerned.

In light of this case, each of the above organic accommodation business licenses is related to the electronic amusement room in the previous location with the facility size at the time of permission, and if the plaintiff et al. has moved all of the amusement facilities to a new place without permission of the competent administrative agency for change of business place, business in the new place shall be revoked, and as long as a new permission is not obtained, the business in the new place shall not be permitted without permission. On the other hand, the administrative agency shall apply for change of business as long as there is an application for change of business. Thus, business in the previous permitted place does not have an amusement facility for another purpose (it can be known that all of the amusement facilities are being used for another purpose according to the records) and the conditions of permission are all legitimate. Accordingly, the decision of the court below ordering the cancellation of each of the above dispositions shall be reversed on the ground that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the permission of business and the revocation (cancellation). Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)