Whether there is any interest in the protection of rights (unlawful) in a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedures for reporting on the maintenance of a public restaurant.

The permission for the business of a public restaurant is a disposition by an application and the permission for the business is naturally invalidated if the business is closed, so there is no legal interest in demanding the business operator to report the change of the business location, and if the business operator changes only the business location without the business closure, the business operator shall obtain the permission for the change of the business location from the State, but this is merely an administrative obligation, and it is not possible to enforce the procedure for requesting the change of the business location against the business operator.

Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 22 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu593 Decided July 14, 1981 (Special I Article 22(14) of the Food Sanitation Act), Article 22(1) of the Food Sanitation Act (Special I Act No. 1073No29 ②71Gong664 Decided 14216)

Exclusive Confinement

Jinculism

1. The plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As a main claim, the plaintiff sought a judgment that "6.20,000 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 25.5 percent per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment," which is the preliminary claim that "6.6 shall carry out the procedure for reporting the change in the location of the establishment and operation of the local restaurant located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the head of Jung-gu Office No. 4651, Sep. 10, 1985, 6.6.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution is sought.

As the cause of the claim in this case, 6.6 Eul-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul and 29-1 and 6.6 Eul-ro, Dong-ro, 30-5 and 2 of the above ground building owned by the plaintiff were externally integrated and constituted one building. On December 1, 1984, the plaintiff leased approximately 9 of the first floor store to the defendant. On September 10, 1985, the defendant, who was operating the main store at the above store and was permitted by the head of the Gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 10, 1985, was granted a business license under the Food Sanitation Act, which was 6.1, Jung-gu, Seoul, 29-1, 6. The business location of the business location, 6.29-1, 29-1, 30, 30, 30, 20, 30, 20, 30, 20, 30, 30, 30, 1987.

The public restaurant business license under the Food Sanitation Act is a disposition by an application and the business license is naturally invalidated if the person who received such an application closes his/her business. In this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any legal interest to compel the defendant to implement the procedure for reporting the change of the business location. Even though the defendant did not discontinue his/her business and only changes his/her business location, if the business owner changes his/her business location, the business owner shall obtain permission from the competent administrative agency pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but this is merely an administrative obligation that the person who operates the food service business pays to the State.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of the main claim of this case is unlawful as it does not allow any kind of maternity or civil law.

In addition, as long as the defendant is not obligated to implement the above procedure for reporting the change of the business location, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's failure to implement such procedure is an abuse of right and thus infringing the rights and interests of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is not necessary to examine the amount of damages.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's main claim of this case is unlawful, it shall be dismissed, and the conjunctive claim shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) et al.