Whether delay in the completion inspection by the permitting authority under the Public Performance Act may interfere with or infringe upon the conduct of entertainment business;

Even if a person who has obtained permission to establish a performance hall pursuant to Article 7-2 of the Public Performance Act does not have the right to conduct a performance hall and to conduct a performance business after the completion inspection is merely an anti-private interest in the permission to establish a performance hall. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the permission authority interferes with or infringes on the applicant for the completion inspection, on the ground that the permission authority did not conduct the completion inspection.

Article 7 of the Public Performance Act

69Da269 decided Apr. 29, 1969 (the Supreme Court Decision 415 Supreme Court Decision No. 17Du1572 decided Apr. 29, 196)

Applicant

Korea

Daejeon District Court (68Ka375 decided) of the first instance court

The petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The applicant shall revoke the original judgment.

The respondent shall not infringe the applicant's interest in the entertainment business in the above theater of the applicant with the permission to establish the performance hall on May 1, 1967, by the time of the decision on the merits on the (trade name omitted) theater owned by the applicant on the ground (number 1, 2, 3, 4 omitted) in Yan-si, Incheon-si.

The court costs are assessed against the respondent in the first and second trials.

1. On May 1, 1967, the applicant is an affiliated agency of the respondent, and the Chungcheong-do branch office of Chungcheongnam-do under the Public Performance Act, the permission authority for the installation of a performance hall on the ground level of 675 square meters from the site boundary of the Dong-si Culture Complex (number 1, 2, 3, 4 omitted) under the Public Performance Act and applied for the completion inspection on February 19, 1968, but there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the applicant did not undergo the completion inspection, even though he applied for the completion inspection on February 19, 1968.

2. The applicant asserts that the applicant's failure to comply with the completion inspection applied by the above Cheongnam-do Governor and thus interferes with the applicant's interest in the above theater and thus, he sought exclusion from interference. As such, the applicant newly constructed the theater building with the permission to establish the above performance hall from the Cheongnam-do Governor, but did not undergo the completion inspection under Article 7-2 of the Public Performance Act, so the applicant did not have the right to conduct entertainment by using the above theater building. However, the applicant can perform entertainment by using the above theater after undergoing the completion inspection under the Public Performance Act. However, the applicant cannot be deemed as a person who obtained the permission to establish the performance hall, and claiming the above completion inspection cannot be claimed because it is against the anti-private interest, and it cannot be claimed. Accordingly, the applicant's request for provisional disposition is based on no right to preserve the object and it cannot be claimed as a provisional disposition, and the applicant's request for the above completion inspection cannot be dismissed by applying Article 7-2 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is reasonable and reasonable to dismiss the appeal.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)