The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. misunderstanding of the legal principles as to “public bath business” and facilities excluded therefrom under the Public Health Control Act (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Whether the operation of the instant bathing-related facilities constitutes a public bath under the Public Sanitary Control Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides for matters concerning the business and the sanitary management of facilities used by the public to improve sanitation level and contribute to the improvement of national health (Article 1). Article 2(1)1 of the Act provides for “public sanitary business” as “the lodging business providing sanitary management services to many people, which is the lodging business using public bath business and the beauty cleaning and hygiene management business,” and Article 2(1)3 of the Act provides for “public bath-related facilities and equipment, etc. that make it possible to take bath in water” (hereinafter “public bath service”) or “facilities and equipment, etc. that provide customers with any of the following services (hereinafter “public bath service”).

A person who intends to conduct a public sanitary business shall be equipped with facilities and equipment prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for each type of public sanitary business and report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (limited to the head of an autonomous Gu) (Article 3(1) of the Act). In the case of a bath business, he/she shall have a bath room equipped with bathing and shower rooms, a bath room, and a shot room, respectively. However, in the case of a bath business, he/she may not install a bath room, and in the case of a business that provides bathing services only, he/she shall not install a bath room.