207, 447. Revocation of a disposition rejecting an application for casino license

Jina Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Haok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor

The litigation performer, the single, the second, and the second of the class;

April 30, 2008

June 18, 2008

1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 25, 2007, the disposition of the defendant's rejection of the application for casino license against the plaintiff on June 25, 2007 is revoked. Preliminaryly, the omission of the defendant's failure to publicly announce the criteria for permission for casino business under the Ordinance on Special Cases concerning the Tourism of Jeju Special Self-Govern

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of tourist hotel business and casino business on October 25, 1989, and operated Jeju-si hotel ○○○ hotel located in Jeju-si. On March 2, 2007, the said Jeju-si hotel 00 was certified as a special class 1 (the effective period from March 2, 2007 to March 1, 2010) from the head of Jeju-do Tourism Association.

B. On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to operate a casino business for foreigners only on the first floor of the above Jeju ○○ hotel. On June 25, 2007, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for permission on the ground that the specific criteria for permission for casino business do not include the provisions in the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City (hereinafter “Special Act”) and the Ordinance on Special Cases concerning the Tourism of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “Special Ordinance”), and there is no separate public announcement therefor. In light of the trend of increase of foreign tourists and casino customers, and the current status of the Jeju Do casino business, the Plaintiff did not permit a new casino business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 19-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful or unjust for the following reasons.

A) The permission for casino business is an act of bound by the permission-granting authority when the application for the permission meets the requirements prescribed by this Act as a release of general prohibition. It is unlawful for the Defendant to return the application for permission of this case filed by the Plaintiff, which satisfies all the requirements prescribed by the Special Act on Jeju-do and the Special Ordinance.

B) The Defendant is obligated to immediately make a public announcement of the detailed criteria for permission for a casino business in accordance with the purport of the Special Act on Jeju-do and the Special Ordinance on the Permission for Casino Business enacted for the purpose of promoting the tourism industry including the casino business and contributing to the realization of free international cities by relaxing the requirements for permission for a casino business exclusively for foreigners, and it is unreasonable to return the Plaintiff’s application for permission on the ground that there is no provision or public announcement of the Ordinance on the Specific Criteria for Permission for the Permission for the Casino Business

C) Even if the permission for domestic casino business is a discretionary act, it is expected that the recent increase of foreign tourists would be significant increase in the number of foreign tourists in the future because Jeju-do was registered as a world cultural heritage, and that foreign tourists would be expected to increase in the future, and that the plaintiff's operation of the casino business would be able to earn more than 120 billion employment windows and more than 5 billion won, while the plaintiff's operation of the casino business against Jeju ○○○ hotel hotel hotel guests, it is anticipated that other casino business operators will not be damaged. In the case of other tourism businesses, such as special hotel and golf course, even if the existing business operators approved new businesses, restricting new permission to protect the existing business operators only in the case of the casino business, is not a reasonable restriction contrary to the principle of free competition. In light of the above, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful as it is against the abuse of discretionary power and thus, it is against the principle of free competition.

D) In principle, the Defendant, in order to support the improvement of the balance of business operation of a special-class hotel in Jeju-do, permits a special-class hotel to engage in casino business, and all other special-class first-class hotels are installed and operated by a casino room, but refusing to permit a casino business for the Plaintiff is illegal against the equity with the existing casino businessman.

2) Preliminary Claim

The Defendant is obligated to publicly announce the detailed criteria for permission for the casino business in accordance with the purport of the Special Act on Jeju-do and the Ordinance on Special Cases Concerning the Implementation of Free International City, which was enacted for the purpose of promoting the tourism industry of Jeju-do including the casino business, and contributing to the realization of free international cities. Although the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to make a public announcement of the criteria for permission to apply for permission for the casino business several times, it is unlawful to not make a public announcement of the

B. Relevant laws and regulations

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Judgment as to the main claim

A) Whether permission for a casino business is a continuous act

On the other hand, the issue of whether a certain administrative act is a binding act or discretionary act cannot be uniformly defined. The determination should be made by considering all the forms, systems, or language of regulations on the basis of the pertinent disposition, the main purpose and characteristics of the administrative area to which the pertinent act belongs, the individual nature and type of the pertinent act itself. In light of the relationship between the Tourism Promotion Act that punishs a person who opened gambling for profit as one of the crimes of the Criminal Act and tourism businesses, which permits permission to conduct an act prohibited under the Criminal Act, in certain cases where a casino business falling under gambling opening for profit is permitted to do an act prohibited under the Criminal Act, "permission" can be defined as "specific cases where a certain act is prohibited under the socially harmful and suppression of illegality, and thus, it does not allow the Governor to permit an act outside the right of freedom under the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act for a certain period of time, and therefore, the restriction on the casino business operation under the above Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Maintenance of Public Order and Security's sound development of public order can be seen as necessary.

B) Whether the Defendant is obligated to immediately give public notice of the requirements for casino permission

However, the permission for casino business is distinct from the previous permission under the Food Sanitation Act. The act of discretionary discretion falls under the criteria for exercising discretion and the time for setting such discretion. Article 28 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act also includes the criteria for exercising discretion. Article 28 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates that the detailed criteria prescribed by the Minister of Culture and Tourism shall be publicly announced in advance for the sound development of casino business. According to Article 9 (3) of the Special Ordinance on Special Cases, the Do Governor may limit a new permission for a certain period of time if deemed necessary for the sound development of casino business. Article 9 (2) of the Special Ordinance on Special Cases provides that the Do Governor shall meet the criteria publicly announced when the Do Governor grants permission for casino business. Thus, if a new permission for casino business is not granted under Article 9 (2) of the Special Ordinance on Special Cases, it is difficult to hold the Defendant liable to make a prior public announcement of the detailed criteria, regardless of whether or not the conditions for conducting a new permission are equipped.

C) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Defendant abused or abused discretion in rendering the instant disposition, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) in Jeju-do, the new development of the company is in the status of eight enterprises including obtaining permission for the casino business on December 28, 1995; (b) seven enterprises are currently in operation; (c) the rate of operating facilities is at least 0.5% and 3.85%; and (d) the number of business difficulties is increased due to excessive competition among the enterprises; (b) foreign tourists and users of the Jeju-do, and Jeju-do’s entire sales revenue in the Jeju-do region from 1995 to 2006 can be recognized as identical to the following table (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is false that the Plaintiff, even if considering the large profits of the existing enterprises, has omitted sales revenue, has no evidence to acknowledge it as false, is not accepted).

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, Article 9 (3) of the Special Ordinance provides that if it is deemed necessary for the public safety, the maintenance of order or the sound development of the casino business for a certain period, the Do Governor may restrict the new permission for the casino business for a certain period. In other words, the following circumstances recognized as follows: ① although foreign tourists in Jeju-do continuously increase, the number of casino visitors in 2006 is 127,154, and 1,792, more than 128,946, and the total number of casino visitors in 1995, and ② The total sales amount of the Jeju-do casino businesses in 206 are 70,23,000,000 and 111,000,000,000 won prior to the 195,000,000,000 won and more than the previous 12,532,000,000 won and more than the previous 204,000,00 won and more than the previous 4,00.

D) Whether the measure of this case violates the right to equality

The fact that there are 11 special tourist hotels in Jeju-do and 8 of them are installed, there is no dispute between the parties, but the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant, in principle, granted a casino business to a special-class hotel in order to support the improvement in the balance of business operation of the special-class hotel in Jeju-do, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Rather, as recognized earlier, the permission act of the casino business belongs to the discretionary act of the administrative agency, if deemed necessary for the sound development of the casino business, it may be restricted to the new permission of the casino business for a certain period. The defendant did not carry out the permission of the casino business one time after the central government office transferred the authority of permission from Jeju-do due to the enactment of the Special Act on Jeju-do, and at present, a large number of small-scale casino businesses are facing difficulties in operating the casino business due to excessive competition, and it is difficult to say that the previous permitted casino business entity does not limit the plaintiff's underground casino business to the plaintiff's underground floor by leasing it to the plaintiff's underground floor.

E) Ultimately, permission for casino business is lawful since it is an act within the scope of the defendant's discretion, and the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to equality by arbitrarily treating the plaintiff differently from other special class 1 tourist hotel business operators. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

On the other hand, administrative litigation is to achieve legal stability by resolving legal disputes over a specific case by law. Thus, it is a dispute over a specific relationship of rights and obligations, and it is not a direct change in the specific rights and obligations of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11261 delivered on May 8, 192) and thus, it is not a subject of administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1261 delivered on May 8, 1992). The notice of this case is to determine specific requirements and procedures for permission in accordance with delegation of Article 5(1) and (5), Article 21(1)1 and (2) of the Tourism Promotion Act, Article 28(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Jeju-do Special Act, Article 171(1) and (3) of the Jeju-do Special Act. Thus, even if the defendant did not enact and publicly announce this case, it is unlawful for the plaintiff's claim of this case to be a subject of an administrative litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the conjunctive claim in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Yoon-ju

Judge Kim fixed-term

Judges subordinate to judges