B. Whether the disposition of revocation of permission for the business of a place of abandonment is unlawful solely on the ground that the disposition of revocation violates the criteria stipulated in the Enforcement Rule of the former Recreation Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 755 of September 22, 198

(c) Whether a person who has obtained permission for the business of a place of abandonment closes his/her business by ordering the place of business and selling all amusement facilities (negative)

B. Article 9 (No. 755 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Recreation Business Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 755 of Sep. 22, 1984) provides for the administrative rules within the administrative agency, such as the guidelines for administrative affairs concerning the revocation of permission for the business of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of business.

C. Under the former Recreation Act (amended by Act No. 3441 of Apr. 13, 1981), permission for a business of a place of business is a permission for a place of business and an entertainment facility, etc. which constitute an element of permission for a business. Thus, in a case where all amusement facilities installed in a place of business are removed and cannot perform the permitted business function any more, the previous permission for a business becomes null and void as a matter of course, and the previous permission for a place of business becomes null and void as in the case where the permitted person discontinues his/her business, and in a case where the permitted person discontinues his/her business upon the application, the permission for a place of business becomes null and void as a matter of course, and in such a case, the permission for a place of business does not become null and void. Thus, if the person who obtained permission for a place of business discontinues his/her business by ordering the place of business and removing all amusement facilities by sale,

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Article 20 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "no lawsuit against a case without an administrative appeal or without an adjudication shall be filed after 180 days from the date on which the plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, or after one year from the date on which the disposition is made, except in the case where there is a justifiable reason." The "date of the disposition" refers to the date on which the administrative disposition is notified to the other party and becomes effective in accordance with the general legal principles of expression of intent, unless there is a special provision in the case of an administrative disposition against the other party. According to the records, the defendant is not notified to the plaintiff at the time of the cancellation of the permission for the business of the electronic amusement room of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the cancellation of the disposition of this case") which the defendant made against the plaintiff as of August 11, 1986. Thus, it is recognized that the plaintiff was notified in the form of reply to the plaintiff's inquiry. Thus, the lawsuit of this case brought on May 30, 1989 is not justified since one year after the date of the disposition of this case.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

원심은 원고가 1978.9.18. 피고로부터 전자오락인 아케이드 이큅프멘트에 관한 유기장의 영업허가를 받아 서울 중구 신당동 217에서 '금호'라는 상호로 유기장업을 경영하여 온 사실, 피고는 원고가 1984.10.경부터 위 유기장의 영업을 무단폐업하였다는 이유로 구 유기장업법 제4조 , 제9조 제1항 제2호 를 적용하여 1986.11.6.(이는 1986.8.11.의 명백한 오기로 보인다) 원고에 대한 위 유기장의 영업허가를 취소하는 이 사건 취소처분을 한 사실등을 인정한 다음, 구 유기장업법(1984.4.10. 법률 제3729호) 제4조 제1항 , 제9조 제1항 제2호 , 제3항 , 구 유기장업법시행령(1984.7.20. 대통령령 제11473호) 부칙 제2항, 제3항, 구 유기장영업법시행규칙(1984.9.22. 보건사회부령 제755호) 부칙 제2항 및 [별표2] ( 법 제9조 제3항 의 규정에 의한 행정처분의 기준)등에 의하면, 영업자가 법 제4조 제1항 의 규정에 의한 허가를 받지 아니하고 영업장소 또는 시설을 변경한 때에는 1차 위반일 때 영업정지 10일 내지 20일, 2차 위반일 때영업정지 20일 내지 1월, 3차 위반일 때 영업정지 1월 내지 2월, 4차 위반일때 영업허가취소를 하도록 행정처분의 기준을 규정하고 있는 바, 설사 원고가 위 유기장의 영업장소 또는 시설의 변경에 관하여 허가를 받은 사실이 없다고 하더라도 그에 관한 위반사항이 4차에 걸쳐 이루어졌음을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없는 이 사건에 있어서 위 행정처분기준을 위배하여 한 이 사건 취소처분은 재량권을 일탈한 위법한 처분이라고 판단하여 이 사건 취소처분의 취소를구하는 원고의 청구를 인용하였다.

However, Article 9 (3) of the former Recreation Business Act (Act No. 3729, Apr. 10, 1984) provides for administrative rules within the administrative agency such as the administrative agency's guidelines concerning the revocation of permission for business or suspension of business under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article. However, although Article 9 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Recreation Business Act (Ordinance No. 7555, Sep. 22, 1984) provides for detailed criteria for the revocation of permission for business or the suspension of business under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article, the nature and contents of the provision are of the nature of administrative orders within the administrative organization that the Minister of Health and Welfare issued for the purpose of setting guidelines for the revocation of permission for business of a place of abandonment and its employees. Thus, even if the administrative organization is detained by the administrative agency or employees, it cannot be deemed that the disposition is unlawful, and whether the disposition is legitimate or not it conforms to the above rules, it shall not be determined by the proviso to Article 9 (25) of the former Enforcement Rule;

그리고 이 사건의 경우 구 유기장법(1961.12.6.법률 제810호) 제2호 제1항 과 구 유기장법시행령(1962.9.22. 각령 제972호 및 1971.12.31. 대통령령 제5916호) 제1조 에 의하면, 원고가 유기장의 영업허가를 받은 1978.9.18. 당시에는 아케이드 이큅프멘트가 이미 같은 법에 의하여 영업허가를 받아 유기장업을 경영할 수 있는 "공중유기시설"에서 제외되어 있었음이 분명하므로(1962.9.22.부터 1971.12.30.까지만 위와 같은 공중유기시설에 포함되어 있었음), 피고가 원고에게 아케이드 이큅프멘트에 관한 유기장의 영업허가를 할 수 없었던 것인데 착오로 원고에게 위와 같이 영업허가를 한 것으로 보일 뿐만아니라, 기록에 의하면 원고가 유기장의 영업허가를 받고 서울 중구 신당동 217소재 점포에서 유기장업을 경영하던 중 1984.11.경 점포의 소유권자에게 점포를 명도하여(그 뒤에는 다른 사람들이 그 점포를 다른 용도로 사용하였음) 그 장소에서는 더이상 영업을 계속할 수 없게 되자 유기시설을 모두 철거하여 점포의 옥상에 쌓아 두었다가 곧 매각하고 폐업함으로써 유기장업법 소정의 유기장영업허가의 요건이 되는 영업장소와 유기시설을 전혀 갖추지 못하게 되었음을 알 수 있으므로(피고가 이 사건 취소처분의 근거법령으로 구 유기장업법 제4조 제1항 및 제9조 제1항 제2호 를 내세움으로써 원고가 허가를 받지 아니하고 영업장소 또는 시설을 변경하였음을 처분사유로 삼은 것과 같은 형식을 취하였지만 실질적으로는 위와 같은 무단폐업을 처분사유로 삼았다), 원심으로서는 이와 같은 사정들까지도 고려하여 이 사건 취소처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈한 것인지의 여부를 판단하였어야 마땅하다.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case was an unlawful disposition that deviates from discretionary authority solely on the ground that the disposition of this case was against the administrative disposition criteria stipulated in Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Recreation Business Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the revocation of permission for the business of the place of abandonment or the scope of discretionary authority of the administrative disposition, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, according to Article 3 of the former Recreation Act (amended by Act No. 3441 of Apr. 13, 1981) and Article 3 and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10323 of Jun. 2, 1981), permission for the business of a place of a place of a place of a place of a business constitutes an element of permission for the place of a place of a place of a business and an amusement facility. Since permission for the business of a place of a place of a place of a place of a place of a business is clearly removed and its business function cannot be performed any more than the permitted business function of the place of a place of a place of a business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Nu3891 of Nov. 13, 1984). Since permission for the first place of a place of a business cannot be achieved, permission for the place of a place of a place of a business, the first place of a place of a place of a business of which was already cancelled and its business becomes null and void (see, 7Nu 198.4.19.6.7.184.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)