(b) Object of Article 3 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

B. Article 24 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (the Presidential Decree No. 10934, Oct. 21, 1982) applies only to those who had been equipped with non-exclusive entertainment restaurant facilities at the time when the above Enforcement Decree was promulgated and enforced on October 21, 1982, and even if the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides facility standards using the term "non-exclusive entertainment restaurant" after the amendment to the Ordinance No. 719, Jan. 15, 1983, it is provided in detail in the attached Table 9 of the above Enforcement Rule before the amendment, so long as Article 24 (9) of the above Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides the facility standards for passenger entertainment restaurants, facilities that can be verified as to whether the facility standards for non-exclusive entertainment restaurants are appropriate shall be already installed at the time when the above Enforcement Decree was promulgated and the interpretation on the timing

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the Addenda of the Food Sanitation Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 10934, Oct. 21, 1982, Article 10934 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, "any person who has obtained permission for the business of the Ministry of Food and Drug shall be deemed to have obtained permission for the business of an dancing entertainment restaurant under the previous provisions at the time this Decree enters into force.

The judgment of the court below is confirmed as satisfying the facility standards of the non-exclusive entertainment restaurant. After considering the premise that the facility standards of the non-exclusive entertainment restaurant as a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant are met with the requirements for change of the purpose of use under the relevant laws and regulations, the plaintiff was not permitted to change the use of the building part of the building of this case from the general entertainment restaurant to the dance hall pursuant to Article 48 of the Building Act, Article 99 (1) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and therefore, it does not fall under the case of non-exclusive entertainment restaurant as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the above revised Food Sanitation Act, and the defendant's rejection of the application

I think, the purport of Article 3 of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Amended Food Sanitation Act is that if a person who has obtained a business license for a house under the previous provisions prior to the amendment of the Amended Enforcement Decree at the time of the promulgation of the Amended Enforcement Decree, is confirmed by the competent business permission office that he satisfies the facility standards for a dancing entertainment restaurant, he shall be deemed to have obtained a business license for a dancing entertainment restaurant. Therefore, the issue of whether the facility standards for a dancing entertainment restaurant are equipped shall be confirmed after the examination by the competent business permission office under the Food Sanitation Act based on the facility standards for a dancing entertainment restaurant under Article 22 of the Amended Enforcement Decree, Article 9(1) of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Act, Article 24(1) of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Act, Article 24(9) of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Act, and Article 24(9) of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Amended Act.

2. However, as mentioned above, the transitional provisions of Paragraph (3) of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Food Sanitation Act stipulate that if it is confirmed that a person who has obtained a business license of the principal under the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree meets the facility standards for a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant, he shall be deemed to have obtained a business license for a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant. Thus, the subject of Paragraph (3) of the above Amended Enforcement Decree is limited to a person who has met the facility standards for a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant at the time of October 21, 1982 when the Amended Enforcement Decree was enforced, and the person who installed a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant facility after the enforcement of the Amended Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Revised Enforcement Decree of the Amended by Act No. 1982, Nov. 1, 1982.

However, according to the attached Table 9 of Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 719, Jan. 15, 1983) as of October 21, 1982, the above Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 719, Oct. 21, 1982), there is no provision on the facility standards for passenger freight restaurants, age clubs, etc., but there is no provision on the facility standards using the terms of dancing entertainment restaurants. Thus, until the amendment of the above Enforcement Rule, there is no way to confirm whether a person who meets the facility standards for dancing entertainment restaurants at the time of the amendment of the above Enforcement Rule.

However, even if the above amended enforcement rules stipulate the facility standards using the term "free amusement restaurant", facilities that can be confirmed as meeting the facility standards should be installed at the time of the promulgation and enforcement of the above amended enforcement decree, and the interpretation of the installation time of the facilities shall not depend upon the time of the amendment of the above Enforcement Rule.

In addition, according to Article 9 (1) 3 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, the concept of the non-exclusive entertainment restaurant is defined as "cabarets, age clubs, high clubs, etc. which can have dancing and collect admission fees" and according to attached Table 9 of Article 24 of the revised Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, it is clear that the plaintiff's needs not be confirmed even according to the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act prior to the above amendment, even if it is governed by the Food Sanitation Act prior to the above amendment, it is clear that it is not impossible to ascertain whether the plaintiff satisfies the facility requirements for the non-exclusive entertainment restaurant among the non-exclusive entertainment restaurants stipulated in Article 9 (3) of the above revised Enforcement Rule.

Ultimately, the lower court’s conclusion that the Plaintiff is not subject to Article 3 of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act cannot be deemed justifiable.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)