(영문) 대구고등법원 1984. 4. 12. 선고 83구266 판결[전자유기장업허가취소등처분취소][판례집불게재]
Kim head of the Gu (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Msan Market
March 15, 1984
1. The defendant's rejection of an application for change of an electronic recreation funeral (the location of the place of business) against the plaintiff on July 8, 1983, which was the court below 1435-104, is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
In full view of the statements in evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 3 (the same as evidence No. 1), evidence Nos. 1-2, and evidence Nos. 2, which do not conflict with the establishment, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to change the electronic amusement funeral (the location of the place of business) to 165-5, 1983 on July 5, 1983, after obtaining permission from the defendant for the operation of the electronic amusement place business from the defendant on Sep. 10, 1980, for the change of the location of the place of business from 165-5, 1983, the defendant filed an application for permission to change the location of the place of the electronic amusement funeral (the location of the place of business) to 165-5, 1983. However, the defendant on the 8th of the same month, on the grounds that the relation is likely to cause the speculative spirit and the economic waste of the defective abandonment, which is a special area set by the Do governor.
The Plaintiff’s agent argues that the Plaintiff’s initial place of business was a building leased by others, and thus, it was inevitable for the lessor to change the location of the existing place of business to permit the Plaintiff’s electronic recreation business, and that the Defendant’s application for change of the location of the existing place of business would be bound to permit the Plaintiff’s use of the former place of business unless there exist special circumstances, such as deeming it inappropriate for the Plaintiff to maintain public health and entertainment. Thus, the Defendant’s non-permission of change of the existing place of business to the extent that the Plaintiff’s use of the former place of business was unreasonable to avoid cancellation of the permission’s use of the former place of business. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act, the Plaintiff’s use of the existing place of business and the former place of business and the former place of business and the latter’s use of the facilities and the latter’s use of the facilities and the latter’s use of the facilities and the latter’s use of the facilities and the latter’s use of the facilities and other necessary reasons are unreasonable.
If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the application for permission of change on the electronic recreation place (the location of the place of business) of this case is illegal, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition.
April 12, 1984
Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)