There is interest in a lawsuit seeking a report on closure of the public restaurant business

A public restaurant business license is a disposition by an application and the business is discontinued by a person who is subject to a disposition by the same application, the business license is effective. In this case, the business report is only the notification of the closure of business, and there is no legal effect such as the invalidation of the license disposition only, and therefore there is no benefit to file a report on the closure of the business with the business operator.

Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu593 Decided July 14, 1981 (Article 23(14)1074 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 23(1074 of the Civil Food Sanitation Act, Article 29 ② 71Gong64 Decided 6216)

Maximum conversion

United Kingdom of Justice

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant withdraws the permission to operate a public restaurant business (No. 5268) permitted by the plaintiff's store.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, with respect to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio, it is difficult to find out what purport of the claim is because the plaintiff did not clarify the purport of the claim in spite of the three demands by the party members. Further, even if the defendant seeks to report the closure of the public restaurant business permitted by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 26, 1986, the plaintiff's ground of claim of this case is that the defendant leased 17 square meters of the store in the 5-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City and 108 ground of the building owned by the plaintiff on November 26, 1985 (hereinafter "the store of this case") from the head of the Gu on February 26, 1986 and operated the public restaurant in the store of this case with the permission of the head of the Gu on February 26, 1986, the contract for the business closure of the public restaurant of this case was terminated, and the defendant cannot make a notification to the head of the public restaurant of this case, which is the owner of the public restaurant of this case's business closure.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)