Plaintiff

Heading Market

December 19, 2016

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap333 decided December 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s failure to issue to the Plaintiff the certificate of reporting on the public health business (or accommodation business) related to four guest rooms (Nos. 7006, 8004, 807, and 8008) among the accommodation facilities of the first instance ○○○○○○○ Condominium, the second instance court’s decision is unlawful. In the first instance, the Defendant’s refusal to accept the report on the above guest rooms (or accommodation business) against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (b) the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the deletion of not more than 3.c. (2) and addition of the following.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s overall purport of appeal is that “the instant disposition refusing to accept the instant report on the ground that there is no provision allowing duplicate reports in relation to the business reports of accommodation business or there is no express provision requiring the establishment of entertainment visitors, etc. in the relevant statutes, such as the Public Health Act.”

B. However, in interpreting the law, even if it is a principle to faithfully interpret the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law as far as possible, the court should ultimately interpret the law to ensure legal stability and concrete feasibility by taking into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law in question, the entire system of the law in question, the history of its enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire law and order, relations with other laws and regulations, etc.

C. Based on this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the acceptance of reports on accommodation business under the interpretation of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes can be seen as “material disposal,” ② the purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes with respect to business transfer and succession, ③ the purport of the overall legislative intent of the Public Health Control Act, etc. Furthermore, it is not permitted to duplicate business reports on the same facilities and equipment. If such interpretation is not made, multiple lodging reports on one accommodation business are made, and administrative agencies are difficult to understand who are responsible for sanitary management and safety guarantee of the relevant facilities and equipment, and this would considerably obstruct the achievement of the purpose of the Public Health Control Act.

D. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that “if the Plaintiff, a new owner, reports the business of the existing accommodation business, has been naturally closed, the existing report on the business of the existing accommodation business shall be deemed naturally closed,” or that “if it is sufficient to keep the account book that the guest room will be changed due to the loss of ownership in the management ledger of the report on the business of the existing accommodation business, it shall be adequate.” However, the Plaintiff’s above assertion not only is an independent assertion that the legal basis is insufficient, but also is generalized, it would result in the Plaintiff’s failure of any contractual relationship or dispute between the existing accommodation business and the new owner, that if only the new owner’s report on the business of the existing accommodation business has to be deemed to have been closed by the administrative agency less than the designated manager’s reporting on the business of the existing accommodation business. Rather, the Plaintiff, through appropriate means such as civil litigation or administrative litigation, should first extinguish the validity of the existing accommodation business, and even if it should be equipped with the facilities required by the relevant laws, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

1) Although the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unclear, even if it is based on the fact that ownership under the Civil Act is an absolute right, the absolute nature of ownership is not the meaning that ownership should be absolutely guaranteed at any time and in any case, but it is merely the meaning that ownership is the right to claim for a third party (other than bonds) in the private law area. Even if ownership is held, it is reasonable to deem that the ownership may be restricted by the law, and as seen earlier, in light of the overall structure and purport of the Public Health Act, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of a lodging facility or an establishment of a lodging business cannot make a duplicate

2) The Plaintiff appears to have asserted to the effect that there is a precedent for allowing duplicate reports based on Supreme Court Decision 2014Du6227 (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du6279 Decided May 1, 201, Busan High Court Decision 2013Nu2679). However, as stated in the reasoning of the above judgment, this case is a case where multiple reports are not problematic as the existing accommodation proprietor reports the change of the accommodation business with respect to the guest room no longer available for accommodation due to the cancellation of entrustment (However, although 12 guest rooms among the 169 reported guest rooms by the new accommodation proprietor overlaps with the existing accommodation, it does not seem that the above small number of guest rooms overlap with 12 guest rooms in consideration of the fact that the number of guest rooms to be reported is more than the number of guest rooms to be reported, it does not seem to be the purport of allowing duplicate reports.)