However, the Defendant, without filing a report with the Simpo City Mayor from June 20, 2019 to January 28, 2020, operated a sobrying and making soup in the name of “C” from the building located in Simpo City B, and provided the Defendant with the mathing and making soup and making soup and using the ruping and ruping lines to customers who purchase goods from the Defendant.

2. The Defendant asserted that he had been operating D’s loss on the first floor of the building located B at Mapopopo City. On the second floor of the above building, E was equipped with sobrying and making soup (hereinafter “the soup”) under the trade name “C” and transferred the entire facility to the Defendant upon the retirement of the said business.

Since then, the Defendant did not run soup, and there was no fact that the Defendant only allowed some of the customers in the loss of will operated by the Defendant or multi-level marketing customers to temporarily use the soup bath facility of this case free of charge at the service level, and the Defendant engaged in a bath business under the Public Sanitary Control Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. Determination

A. The essential element of public bath business under the Public Sanitary Control Act is that a public bath business should be conducted for profit-making purposes for the general public, and that continuous and repeated provision of services, such as bathing facilities and equipment, under the management of the service provider (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2015HunBa1, Sept. 29, 2016). In addition, taking into account the language, structure, and purpose of the public sanitary management law, the provision of bathing and generating services is obliged to report under Article 3 of the Public Health Control Act.