Delay of completion inspection by the licensing authority and infringement of interest business activities;

Even though the permitting authority has failed to conduct an inspection within a considerable period of time with respect to an application for the completion inspection of a new performance hall, it cannot be readily concluded that the permitting authority has infringed or interfered with the applicant's interest business.

Article 7 of the Public Performance Act

Applicant

Korea

Daejeon High Court Decision 68Na1465 delivered on January 30, 1969, Daejeon High Court Decision 68Na1465 delivered on January 30, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant’s attorney.

According to the applicant's assertion, the applicant is an affiliated agency of the defendant on May 1, 1967, and the building of a theater under Article 7 of the Public Performance Act was newly constructed by the Chungcheong-do branch office which is the permission authority under the Public Performance Act and applied for the completion inspection on February 19, 1968, the above permission authority's branch office does not conduct the above completion inspection, and thus it infringes or interferes with the applicant's entertainment business in the above theater, so the applicant's request for provisional disposition is filed to avoid interference.

According to Article 7 of the Public Performance Act, a person who intends to establish and operate a performance hall shall obtain permission from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do Governor (hereinafter referred to as the "Permission Agency") having jurisdiction over the scheduled site for the installation of the performance hall, and Article 7-2 of the same Act provides that a person who has obtained permission for the installation of the performance hall under the above provision shall not use the performance hall unless he undergoes a completion inspection by the Permission Agency. Even if the person newly constructed the performance hall, the applicant shall be permitted to operate the performance hall without undergoing the above completion inspection, and it shall not be deemed that the applicant cannot refuse the completion inspection unless the above completion inspection is completed. Thus, even if the applicant already permitted the installation of the performance hall, it cannot be viewed that the applicant's request for a provisional disposition cannot be viewed as an infringement on the applicant's right, and thus, the court below's right cannot be viewed as an infringement on the applicant's right. Thus, the court below's right cannot be viewed as an infringement on the applicant's right to use of the provisional disposition.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)