[영업허가취소처분취소][공1976.11.1.(547),9372]
Whether it may be cancelled on the ground of the violation of the conditions under Article 23 (2) of the Food Sanitation Act.
Ann business is regulated by the Lodging Business Act and the grounds for revoking a license for a hotel business received once shall be deemed to be limited to the case of violation of Article 8 of the Lodging Business Act, or of violation of the conditions of the said license, and the permission for the business shall not be revoked pursuant to Article 23(2) or Article 25(1) of the Food Sanitation Act.
[Judgment of the court below]
The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu97 delivered on July 6, 1976
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s agent.
The court below held that the plaintiff violated the conditions of permission for business under Article 23 (2) of the Food Sanitation Act by violating the conditions of permission for business, and thus the defendant's revocation of permission for business under Article 25 (1) of the same Act is legitimate.
However, such as the Plaintiff’s business, a hotel business is regulated by the Lodging Business Act, and the grounds for revoking the said business license should be deemed to be limited to the case where Article 8 of the Lodging Business Act or the conditions of the said permission are violated. However, as seen above, the lower court erred in matters of misunderstanding the scope of revocation of the instant business license pursuant to Article 23(2) or Article 25(1) of the Food Sanitation Act. The argument on this point is with merit, and the lower court erred in the application of the Act. In so doing, the lower court did not decide on the remaining grounds for appeal, and reversed the lower judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)