According to Article 3 and Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Recreation Business Act, a person who intends to operate a recreation place business shall submit to the competent authority (the head of the Gu, the head of the Si, or the head of the Gun) having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business a written application stating the address of the applicant 1. 2. The name and location of the place of business, the summary of the business type and structure of the facilities, the number of visitors 4. 5. In order to change the location of the place of business among the permitted matters, he/she shall obtain permission from the competent authority. Thus, an application for change of the place of the place of business cannot be permitted by the person who has not obtained permission for the recreation place business, even if he/she applied for the change of the place of business among the permitted matters, if the permission for the recreation place of business was revoked before the permission for the relocation of the place of business, and if it becomes definite that such disposition cannot be disputed, the person cannot reject the application for relocation of the place of business.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff was a person who had been permitted to engage in the electronic recreation place business from the defendant on Sep. 10, 1980 ( Address 1 omitted) and applied for the change of the place of business to the same Si ( Address 2 omitted). However, on July 8, 1983, the plaintiff rejected the above application and brought an action to revoke the above rejection disposition. However, on July 14, 1983, the defendant revoked the above electronic recreation place business license on the ground that the plaintiff transferred the place of business without permission, and the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above cancellation disposition and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the business license, but the plaintiff could no longer dispute the above cancellation disposition by withdrawing the claim for revocation of the business license on Feb. 16, 1984, which was before the closing of argument.

Thus, the plaintiff could not engage in the same business unless he/she obtains permission from the defendant again, and therefore there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the permission for change of the permission for the business of this case already invalidated. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit on this issue should be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court below's decision is just because it entered the main part and judged the propriety of the disposition rejecting the application, and accepted the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as it affected the decision by misunderstanding the defect of the requirements for lawsuit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)