Whether a person who actually runs a singing practice room business with permission to operate an entertainment tavern business is determined by the type of business in which he/she actually performs the business (affirmative)

The term “person who runs the amusement business affecting the public morals” under Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting the public morals, means a person who actually runs the business falling under the scope of the amusement businesses affecting the public morals under Article 2 of the same Act, without asking whether or not any business license, report, or registration as prescribed by individual Acts, such as Food Sanitation Act, exists, and thus, the matters to be observed by the said person is determined depending on the type of business actually being observed, and it is not determined by the said person’s business license. Thus, even if the permission for the amusement tavern business was granted, if the person actually runs the karaoke machine business, it cannot be said

Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 97No385 delivered on July 2, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below found that the non-indicted 18 years of age at the time of August 10, 1996 entered the singing room operated by the defendant with five working hours and five types of business to be observed by the non-indicted 18 years of age, and that the defendant or his employee did not confirm whether the above non-indicted 1 is a minor, and that the defendant obtained permission for entertainment bar business as to the above singing room. According to the above facts, even though the above facts were the trade name of the above business, it can be sufficiently confirmed that the defendant operated entertainment bar business under subparagraph 8 (d) of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act with the permission for entertainment bar business, and even if the defendant actually operated a domestic singing practice room business, the court below held that the defendant is obligated to perform the matters to be observed under Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses under the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Affecting Affecting Affecting Affecting Affecting Affecting AffectingA.

However, Article 7 subparagraph 8 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides that entertainment bar business is "business that cooks and sells alcoholic beverages, and workers engaged in entertainment may be employed, or entertainment facilities may be established, and customers may sing or dance." Article 8 (3) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "the entertainment facilities referred to in Article 7 subparagraph 8 (d) of the same Decree refer to stage equipment, dance, dance, singing, music, and sound facilities installed for amusement, such as singing, singing, singing, singing, singing, etc. of entertainment workers or customers: Provided, That this excludes stage equipment, dance, lighting facilities, and reflect facilities prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which are installed to allow customers to sing in the entertainment bar." Thus, in order to determine that entertainment bar business was engaged in, it is permitted to mainly prepare and sell alcoholic beverages, and also install entertainment facilities for workers engaged in entertainment or customers, dancing, dance, and entertainment facilities, and it is permitted that entertainment facilities are not permitted to be permitted to 90 4.4.

However, the court below acknowledged only the fact that the defendant obtained permission for entertainment bar business and made customers sing and singing drinking, and determined that the defendant engaged in entertainment bar business, but it is merely a standard to determine the legitimacy of the business, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the actual business type on the ground that permission for business was merely a standard to determine the legitimacy of the business, and it is insufficient to readily conclude that the business type of the above business was mainly cooking and selling alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, even if examining the records, there is no evidence to deem that the above business type was a entertainment facility permitted for entertainment workers or entertainment bar business in the above business, and therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to entertainment bar business.

In addition, the court below held that the defendant was obligated to observe the rules of an entertainment bar business operator as long as he actually operated a singing practice room business. However, the "person who runs an amusement restaurant business" under Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals Business does not ask whether a business license, a report, or a registration under individual Acts, such as Food Sanitation Act, is made or not, and since he actually runs a business belonging to the scope of the amusement businesses affecting public morals under Article 2 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do3404 delivered on July 11, 197), the court below held that the defendant is obligated to observe the rules of an entertainment bar business operator according to the business type in which he actually operated the amusement bar business, and it is not determined by the business license.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the matters to be observed by entertainment bar business and amusement business operators affecting the public morals, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)