All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors) filed a report on a swimming pool business under Article 10(1)2 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) after having facilities in accordance with the swimming pool Facility Standards Act, and the Defendants did not accept the said report on the following grounds: (a) the culture and sports and the public official in charge of culture and sports are problematic in relation to the use of the building; and (b

Accordingly, the Defendants sought advice from H and public officials in charge, and reported it to “physical training center business” under Article 10(1)2 of the Sports Facilities Act, and operated a swimming pool as annexed thereto.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendants did not report on their own is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

Judgment

According to Article 10(1) of the Sports Facilities Act as to whether a sports facility business is reported and whether a swimming pool is operated incidental to a sports facility business, the sports facility business is divided into registered sports facility business and reported sports facility business, and a person who intends to operate a sports facility business such as a swimming pool business is required to report to the Mayor/Do Governor by the method of submitting a report in accordance with the prescribed form, with the pertinent facilities prescribed by the Act and the Enforcement Rule for each type of sports facility business. Thus, the report of sports facility business not equipped with the prescribed facilities is illegal, and the acceptance of the report is inevitable, and the continuation of the reported sports facility business constitutes an act of business without filing a report. However, in the event of a report meeting the legitimate requirements, the report becomes effective at the time of receipt without the need to separate measures such as the repair disposition of the administrative agency, and the acceptance of the report is not denied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do3121 delivered on April 24, 1998, etc.). However, according to the records, the Defendants are about 150 children at a swimming pool divided by Les.