The legal nature of the report and the standard for determining non-reported business in the sports facility business to be reported under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act.

According to Articles 10, 11, and 22 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, and Articles 8 and 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, sports facility business is divided into registered sports facility business and reported sports facility business, and a person who intends to conduct a sports facility business such as the party hall business shall report to the Mayor/Do Governor by the method of submitting a report in accordance with the prescribed form by the Enforcement Rule of the same Act for each type of sports facility business. Thus, a report on sports facility business not equipped with the prescribed facilities is illegal and its acceptance is no longer denied, 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 put the separate measures such as the repair disposition of the administrative agency, and thus, it does not become a business without filing a report.

Articles 10, 11, and 22 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act; Articles 8 and 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act;

Supreme Court Decision 84Do2953 delivered on April 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 813), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3625 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 668), Supreme Court Decision 93Ma635 delivered on July 6, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2567), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu962 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1636)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 97No3922 delivered on October 16, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 10, 11, and 22 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act and Articles 8 and 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, sports facility business is divided into registered sports facility business and reported sports facility business, and a person who intends to conduct a sports facility business such as the party hall business shall report to the Mayor/Do Governor by the method of submitting a report in accordance with the prescribed form prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Act for each type of sports facility business. Thus, a report on sports facility business not equipped with the prescribed facilities is illegal, and the continued operation of a sports facility business in such a situation is inevitable. However, if a report meets the legitimate requirements against this, it becomes effective as a report at the time of receipt without the need of the administrative agency's acceptance, and thus, it does not constitute an unreported business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu962, Mar. 14, 1995; 94Nu962, Mar. 26, 1993; 193Do3965, Mar. 396, 196.

According to the records, the defendant, at around April 1995, filed a report on the party room business with the competent administrative agency, meeting the legal facility standards at a place 90 meters away from the fixed family of the sublim University, but although the above place was located within the relative Cleanup Zone and the permission of the school environmental sanitation cleanup committee under Article 6 (1) 13 of the School Health Act was refused to accept the report, it can be seen that the defendant runs the party room business at the above place from November 6 to 13:50 of the same year, although the defendant's first report was rejected due to the reason that the deliberation by the school environmental sanitation cleanup committee under Article 6 (1) 13 of the School Health Act was conducted in advance, it can be seen that the defendant's rejection of the report was invalid or invalid without any reason that the above report was made at the time of acceptance of the first report. Thus, even if the defendant's rejection of the report was made at the time of the above concurrent case, it can be viewed that the above reason was invalid or invalid.

The court below's decision that the Mayor/Do governor who received a report on the sports facility business shall accept the report as a matter of course without any particular examination or decision is somewhat inappropriate as a decision on the report on the sports facility business to be reported. However, it is justified that the defendant recognized the fact that the defendant installed the required physical facilities and reported the business of the party, and then determined that the business activity of the defendant in this case conducted thereafter does not constitute a business activity without any report, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the reported business, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)