(a) The meaning of a father attached with additional clauses that "if a plaintiff who had been transferred before a person who had obtained a building permit for a tourist hotel by category of a part of the land designated as the road uses the hotel building temporarily and receives a re-issuance of each business license certificate in the hotel, the permitting agency shall automatically cancel each business license where the permitting agency cannot receive a certificate of completion inspection after performing the obligation of donation until the expiration of the period of provisional use of the hotel building"

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to permission for business and cancellation or by misapprehending the contents of the father's misunderstanding that the fulfillment of the obligation to contribute to donation, which was attached at the time of permission for construction as referred to in the above "A", becomes an additional part of the reservation of withdrawal right when

"A permit to construct a tourist hotel after changing the category of a part of the land designated as the road shall be granted, but the plaintiff who acquired the hotel before the above additional hotel without undergoing a completion inspection due to the failure to perform the above additional pipe, was issued a business license certificate within the hotel from the permitting agency. "If the certificate of completion of the hotel building is not issued until the expiration of the period of provisional use of the hotel building, and therefore, if the certificate of completion of the above hotel building is not issued, the business license is revoked," the license shall be revoked under a certain condition if it is not equipped with certain facilities for each of the above businesses under the relevant provisions, such as the Public Health Act, the Food Sanitation Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. If the plaintiff fails to perform the above duty of donation and thus the certificate of completion of the above hotel building cannot be issued for the expiration of the period of use of the above additional house, it would be impossible to use each of the business places located within the hotel building as a matter of course, and the plaintiff could not be seen as being equipped with each of the above permitting agencies.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to permission for business and cancellation or by misapprehending the contents of the father's misunderstanding that the fulfillment of the obligation to contribute to donation, which was attached at the time of permission for construction as referred to in the above Section A, becomes an incidental to the withdrawal right reservation when the certificate of business license

Article 8 of the Building Act, Article 7 of the Tourism Promotion Act, Articles 4 and 23 of the Public Health Act, Article 22 of the Food Sanitation Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Hak Broadcasting Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Gangdong-gu Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8802 delivered on December 17, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on February 16, 1983 that the above business permission for the business of the tourist hotel promotion company (hereinafter the above non-party company) was not carried out by the non-party 1 and the defendant's application for construction permission for the above department store and the tourist hotel building was unlawful on the ground that the non-party 1 did not carry out the above business permission within the scope of the above 9-mentioned business permission, and the defendant did not carry out the construction permission for each of the above 9-mentioned tourist hotel buildings on the condition that the non-party 1 was not carried out by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's construction permission for each of the above 9-mentioned construction permission for the purpose of securing roads in accordance with the provisions on the relationship between the site and the road under Article 27 (2) of the Building Act and Article 63 (2) of the Enforcement Decree. The court below's decision that the non-party 1 did not carry out the above construction permission for each of the above 9-mentioned buildings and the above construction permission for each of the land.

(2) However, in a case where the Defendant issued a business license certificate to the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not perform its duty of donation until May 31, 1990 when the period of provisional use of the above hotel building expires, and thus, if the Plaintiff did not receive the certificate of completion inspection of the above hotel building, the Plaintiff’s attachment of an additional copy of the retained reservation right to revoke each business license is required to revoke the above license in accordance with the relevant provisions, such as the Public Health Act, the Food Sanitation Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., as to each of the above businesses, if the Plaintiff is unable to receive the certificate of completion of the above hotel building so that the period of provisional use expires due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the above duty of donation, it would be impossible for the Plaintiff to use the above hotel building as a matter of course, and as a result, the Plaintiff could not be equipped with the criteria for each of the above businesses, and if so, the Defendant should have withdrawn each of the above business license granted to the Plaintiff.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition of revocation of the above business license was erroneous on the ground that the Defendant’s performance of the above business license, which was merely an additional pipe attached to the above department store and tourist hotel building at the time of permission for construction on March 29, 1983, was null and void as the subsidiary officer of the reservation of right to withdrawal when the Defendant issued the above business license was aware that the Defendant’s performance of the above business license was an additional subsidiary of the reservation of right to withdrawal when it was to reissue the above business license on December 1, 1989, and thus, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on each business license and revocation thereof, or by admitting the contents of the subsidiary officer of the reservation of right to withdrawal when it was to reissue the above business license, and thus, it did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.