Whether a violation of an order of the supervisory authority to arrange for or prohibit the act of entertainment business is a cause for revocation of the business activity of accommodation.

An order or instruction given by a supervisory authority to the lodging facility that does not arrange or encourage any act of prostitution in the lodging facility, which is issued by the competent supervisory authority, cannot be deemed an order or disposition pursuant to the Lodging Business Act, which is the grounds for revocation of business license under Article 8 of the Lodging Business Act, given that the said Act does not have any grounds for issuing such an order or instruction.

Article 8 of the Lodging Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in the Gyeyang-do

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu589 delivered on January 17, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's female management mediated or encouraged the act of prostitution at the accommodation facility that the defendant issued to the plaintiff, but the order or instruction to the non-recept of the act of prostitution does not constitute an order or disposition under the Lodging Act that can be viewed as the grounds for revocation of the business permission under Article 8 of the Lodging Act, since the above order or instruction cannot be viewed as an order or disposition under the Lodging Act that can be viewed as the grounds for revocation of the business permission under Article 8 of the Lodging Act, the court below held that the disposition of this case by the defendant who revoked the business permission of the plaintiff's hotel was unlawful in accordance with the legitimate interpretation of the law, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice) Don-ri (Presiding Justice)