(b) Legal nature of permission for entertainment entertainment business and discretionary power under the Food Sanitation Act;

B. In light of the purport of the relevant provisions of the Food Sanitation Act, the permitting authority should necessarily grant permission when the application for permission satisfies the requirements prescribed in the Act in light of the nature of the license for entertainment business. In determining whether it is necessary to restrict permission for public interest under Article 24(1)4 of the same Act concerning the grounds for restriction on permission, the authority should exercise discretion carefully by comparing the public interest to achieve the restriction on permission and the disadvantage of the other party to whom the permission is to be received.

1. The administrative disposition should, in principle, be dealt with according to the Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the disposition and the criteria at the time of the application. Even if the criteria for the permission have been changed after the application for the permission, a new disposition should be taken according to the new criteria for the permission, unless the criteria for the permission have been changed since the competent administrative agency accepted the application for the permission and delayed the disposition without any justifiable reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May 22, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1926 delivered on July 25, 1989). In this case, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant delayed the disposition of the application for the permission without any justifiable reason, so the administrative disposition cannot be deemed to be unlawful in accordance with the new criteria for the permission. The judgment below to the same purport is just and without merit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument in this regard has

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Minister of Health and Welfare recognized that the Minister of Health and Welfare, on the basis of the public notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, designated entertainment entertainment business as a category of business subject to restriction on business license under Article 24 (1) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act: Provided, That if the Minister intends to operate entertainment business in an area where the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor deems it unnecessary to restrict business license in consideration of regional circumstances and needs for public interest, the Minister may grant a business license. Accordingly, the head of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, etc. may grant a entertainment entertainment business license in a certain area within the commercial area as the public notice of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, but it cannot be deemed that the permission for entertainment entertainment business cannot be permitted until December 31, 191 in accordance with the government policy to prevent citizens' excessive consumption and morals. In light of the legislative intent of Article 24 (1) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act and the nature of the permission for food service business delegated to the Minister of Health and Welfare, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s application for permission for permission for permission invalidation is unlawful.

In light of the purport of the relevant provisions of the Food Sanitation Act, the permission-granting authority should grant permission if the application meets the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Grounds for the Restriction of Permission. In determining whether it is necessary to restrict permission for the public interest under Article 24(1)4 of the same Act on the grounds for the Restriction of Permission, the authority should exercise prudent discretion by bridgeing the public interest to achieve the restriction of permission and the disadvantage of the other party to receive it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10183, Oct. 23, 1992).

From this point of view, it is difficult to readily conclude that the permission standards set forth in the notice of the Daejeon Metropolitan City, the above public notice of the Daejeon Metropolitan City constitutes the grounds for restriction on permission under Article 24 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act. The area for which the plaintiff applied for permission is a general commercial area under the urban planning and its neighboring day, and the underground room of the building that the plaintiff intends to use as a place of business is a general entertainment restaurant, and the construction permission was granted for the purpose of the general entertainment restaurant and the completion inspection was completed even after the completion inspection was completed. In light of the purport of the Food Sanitation Act, in light of the purport of the Food Sanitation Act, even if considering the purpose of the public interest of suppressing excessive consumption, the non-permission disposition in this case is erroneous

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the nature of permission for amusement restaurants under the Food Sanitation Act and the necessity of public interest.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.