(b) Whether the revocation of the permission to operate a place of business by moving the place without obtaining permission to change the place of business is appropriate (affirmative)

B. In light of the provisions of Article 3 of the former Recreation Business Act (Act No. 3441, Apr. 13, 1981) and Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, permission for the recreation place business is a substitute permission that covers objective elements, such as the contents and condition of the goods. Thus, if a business facility installed in the original permitted place was relocated to a new place of business without permission, it shall conduct business without permission at a new place of business, and the business at the original permitted place of business violates the rules and conditions of permission because it was not equipped with recreation facilities prescribed in the Recreation place Business Act, so the initial permission for the business becomes null and void as it becomes impossible to achieve its purpose, and thus, the permission authority may cancel the permission in the sense of revoking the permission.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant had no previous permit for business of 1980.11.28 of the plaintiff's 1980 and no previous permit for the relocation of 10-year amusement facilities to the same 6-year amusement facilities without permission for the former 0-year amusement facilities, and the plaintiff's order for the removal of 10-year amusement facilities to the same 6-year amusement facilities without permission for the former 0-year amusement facilities without permission for the first 6-year amusement facilities. The plaintiff's order for the removal of 10-year amusement facilities to the same 6-year amusement facilities to the former 0-year amusement facilities without permission for the first 6-year amusement facilities for the first 6-year amusement facilities for the first 0-year amusement facilities for the second 5-year amusement facilities for the second 10-year amusement facilities for the second 7th 7th 1983. The plaintiff's order for the removal of 1-year amusement facilities for the first 6-year amusement facilities for the second 7th 10-year facilities.

2. However, since the business permission of this case is not an act of establishing a business right, but an act of restoring the original business permission of a business operator to cancel the business permission, its business profit is merely anti-private interest, and the cancellation or re-cancellation of the prohibition of the administrative act is a discretionary act of the administrative agency concerned according to the nature of the public interest and purpose. Meanwhile, Article 3 and Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Recreation Business Act provide that a person who wishes to obtain a business permission of a temporary recreation place shall submit an application stating especially the location of the business place, the outline of the business and structure of the facilities to obtain permission of the competent administrative agency, and therefore, the permission of the new business place shall not be cancelled unless the new business place is cancelled because the new business place becomes void because the permission of the new business place is not a new business place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu389 delivered on Nov. 13, 1984). Thus, the new business place cannot be cancelled unless the new business place becomes void and its new business place becomes void.

Therefore, 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 Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)