2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, on April 27, 2015, the defendant's refusal to accept the report of the public health business (or accommodation business) regarding the above guest rooms against the plaintiff is revoked.

A. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of four guest rooms (Nos. 7006, 8004, 8007, and 8008, hereinafter “instant guest rooms”) owned by △△△△△△△△△ Group among the guest rooms located in the building of ○○○○○○○ Condominium (current △△△△△△△△△ Condominium) on the ground (location omitted) (hereinafter “instant accommodation”).

B. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a living-type accommodation business report to the effect that only the instant guest room would engage in a business of accommodation, “Seongcho-gu hotel” (hereinafter “instant report”).

C. On April 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) the instant guest room is a business establishment that registered and accepted as a tourist accommodation facility pursuant to the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “Act”) and the Tourism Promotion Act; (b) the instant report is a duplicate report; (c) the instant guest room is a business that provides sanitary management services with facilities and equipment so that many customers can sleep and stay in a locked area pursuant to the provisions of the Act; and (d) the instant guest room filed by the Plaintiff is a business that provides sanitary management services by having facilities and equipment, etc.; (e) the instant guest room is a type of public health business facility and equipment under attached Table 1 of Article 3(1) of the Act and Article 2(Standards for Facilities and Equipment of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”), or should be separated from facilities and equipment used for any purpose other than a public health business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Gangwon-do Administrative Appeals Commission on May 12, 2015, ordering the immediate issuance of a certificate of reporting under the instant report, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the primary claim among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit’s “the part of the claim for confirmation of illegality in omission with respect to the failure to issue a certificate of report under the instant report.”

A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system for the purpose of removing a passive state of omission or non-subvening by promptly responding to an administrative agency's response, in a case where an administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to an application, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting, within a considerable period of time with respect to an application filed by an administrative agency for a right under laws and regulations or cooking, despite the existence of a legal response obligation to respond to such an application, and thus, if an administrative agency issues a refusal disposition against a party's application, it cannot be deemed that an illegal omission subject to an appeal litigation has occurred, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1326, 1323, 1333, 1340, 1357, 1364, 1371, 138, 1395, 13401, etc.).

On April 27, 2015, according to the facts acknowledged prior to the instant disposition, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s instant report on April 27, 2015, and its purport is not to issue a certificate of report under the instant report. Therefore, there is a passive disposition on the instant report.

Therefore, since there is no omission with respect to the instant report, the part seeking confirmation of illegality of omission among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not exist under the subject of an appeal litigation.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The State shall guarantee not only the ownership of real estate which is the object of partitioned ownership under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, but also the freedom of business therein, and there is no law that tourist accommodation business operators and general lodging business operators may not run a lodging business within the same aggregate building. Thus, even if the report on accommodation business of this case has already been accepted, the Plaintiff may report a new lodging business at the same time as the owner who newly acquired the guest room, and the administrative agency may not refuse to accept the report on a new lodging business on the sole basis of the fact that

In addition, the guest room of this case has all the standards for facilities and equipment prescribed by the Act and the Enforcement Rules, such as where it is independent place as a public health business establishment or is separated from facilities and equipment used for any purpose other than a public health business business. Therefore, there is no reason to refuse to accept

Therefore, the rejection of the instant report is unlawful, so the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry of "related Acts and subordinate statutes" is as shown in the attached Table.

C. Determination

(1) First, under the statutory provisions, we examine whether the acceptance of a report on accommodation business prior to the instant guest room is permitted in duplicate despite the continued acceptance of the report on accommodation business.

According to Article 3 of the Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the acceptance of a report on accommodation business constitutes a so-called “material disposal” in which a reporter merely examines whether the reporter has facilities and equipment necessary for the operation of accommodation business without considering the applicant’s qualifications or functions. Article 3-2 of the Act provides for succession to the public health business, including accommodation business, and Article 3-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides for succession to the status of a business operator following the transfer of business, and requires the submission of a copy of documents proving the transfer and acquisition and a certificate of personal seal impression by the transferor, even in the case of succession to the business, the importance of the facilities and equipment in the business report is reflected in the case of succession to the business, and it is proved by objective methods that the transferee was equipped with facilities and equipment necessary for the operation of the business.

Thus, the administrative agency's acceptance of a report on the business of accommodation with respect to specific facilities and equipment, and acceptance of a report on the business of accommodation with respect to the same facilities and equipment by a third party without any report on the business closure under the Act, is not allowed, since the Act provides that a separate report on the business closure and succession shall be made on the same facilities and equipment. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the new business report on the same business establishment has the effect of extinguishing the business report existing at the time.

In addition, this provision on the closure and succession of a place of business intends to clarify the legal status to run a public health business at a specific place to clarify the scope of duties and responsibilities arising from the activities of a public health business entity, and its legislative purpose is justifiable, and its legislative purpose is not only an appropriate means to achieve this purpose, but also it is difficult to readily conclude that it exceeded the minimum principle of infringement of fundamental rights, such as property rights, and the balance

Therefore, the plaintiff's report of this case is not allowed as duplicate report, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, I will examine whether the instant guest room for accommodation satisfies the requirements of the prescribed facilities and equipment under the law.

Article 3(1) of the Act provides that a person who intends to conduct a public health business shall have the facilities and equipment prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare and report to the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter referred to as the “Mayor, etc.”), and Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Rule provides that “the method and procedure for reporting shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.” Accordingly, Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule provides that the head of the public health business shall be independent place or separate from the facilities and equipment used for purposes other than the public health business, and the lodging business shall have the facilities and windows for cooking and ventilation, and the public health business shall have the facilities and equipment installed for each guest room. Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule provides that a person who intends to conduct a public health business shall report to the head of the relevant Si, etc. by submitting a prescribed report accompanied by the facility and equipment standards for each type of the public health business, and the head of the relevant Si, etc. shall verify the building register, etc. of the business establishment after issuing the report.

(1) According to Article 1 of the Act, the purpose of this Act is to improve sanitary level by providing for matters concerning business and sanitary control of facilities used by the public to contribute to the promotion of health of the people. ② Article 4(1) and (7) of the Act provides for the sanitary control obligations of public health business operators and specific matters to be observed. Accordingly, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule provides for disinfection at least once a month for sanitary control standards, etc. of accommodation business operators, such as guest rooms, guest rooms, rain facilities, corridors, stairs, etc., and lighting of accommodation facilities shall be maintained to the extent that the applicant fails to comply with the above order of suspension of the accommodation business or the above order of suspension of the operation of accommodation facilities to the extent that it is clearly necessary for the convenience of the public to ensure that the applicant fails to comply with the above order of suspension of the accommodation business or the above order of suspension of the operation of accommodation facilities to the extent that the business operator fails to comply with the above order of suspension of the accommodation business or the above order of suspension of the operation of accommodation facilities.

In this case, if we look at the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 1 and 8 (including paper numbers), it is recognized that the guest room of this case occupies only part of 6,7 stories among the accommodation facilities of this case, and there is no sign, etc. which can distinguish it from the guest room operated by other business operators on the same floor, and that there is no separate facility and equipment for only the guest room of this case, such as a separate guest room and a street, are installed.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant disposition that the Defendant refused to accept the instant report in the purport that the instant report was not equipped with the facilities and equipment prescribed by the law for accommodation business.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of illegality of the remaining grounds for disposition is not necessary to further examine, since the instant disposition is sufficiently recognized as lawful only with the aforementioned grounds for disposition among the multiple grounds for disposition of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)