The purport of Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Act 1. A. (2) of the Administrative Disposition Criteria of Attached Table 7.

In a case where a transferee transfers a business to another person pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Public Health Act, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides that the transferee shall succeed to the effect of the disposition already taken before the transfer, is merely the purport that the transferee succeeds to the effect of the disposition already taken against the transferor. Thus, the transferee shall not succeed to the effect of the transferor’s illegal act. Thus, barring any special circumstance where the transferee knowingly acquired the business by the transferor, the administrative disposition taken against the transferee on the ground of the transferor’s violation of the Public Health Act is unlawful.

Article 8 of the Public Health Act, Article 23 of the same Act, and Article 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The order to close the place of business of the user center (title omitted) located in Seoul (detailed address omitted) against the plaintiff as of October 16, 1989 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant disposition

In full view of Gap evidence No. 1 (Administrative Disposition), Gap evidence No. 2 (Report Certificate), Eul evidence No. 4-1 (Report No. 4), and two certificates of seal impression No. 2 (Report No. 2), and the purport of oral argument, the plaintiff, on August 10, 1989, transferred the right to use the facility, etc. as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "User") which he had been operating with the permission from the defendant on August 10, 1989, and completed the report of succession to the status of the business operator and the establishment of the facilities, and operated the business at the same place on the 12th of the same month, and on the grounds that the non-party No. 1, the former name of the user of this case, was provided to the customer with obscene acts on July 5 of the same year, the defendant cannot recognize the fact that on October 16 of the same year, the plaintiff issued an order to close the place of business of the user (hereinafter referred to as the above disposition).

2. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

A. As the cause of the instant claim, Nonparty 1, the transferor of the instant user, did not provide the said user with obscene acts to the customer on July 5 of the same year, and even if there was such fact, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the said business without knowledge of the above fact, asserts that the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of Nonparty 1’s act is unlawful.

B. According to the provisions of Article 12 (2) 4 of the Public Health Act, a user shall not arrange or provide Negs with prostitution, obscene acts or other acts detrimental to good morals, or respond to the request of customers. Article 23 (1) of the same Act provides that if a business operator violates the same Act or any order issued under the same Act, the head of the Gu, etc. may take an administrative disposition such as the closure order of the place of business, etc. Meanwhile, the head of the Gu, etc. shall be able to do so. Meanwhile, evidence 1 (Notification of Crimes and Transfer), No. 5-1 (Notification of Case Handling), 2 (Notification), 3 (Certification of Disposition), 4 (Evidence of Disposition), and the whole purport of testimony and oral argument by Nonparty 2, the transferor of the user of this case, at around July 20, 200 of the same year, Nonparty 1, who is the witness, shall not be aware of the fact that Nonparty 2, who is the customer’s witness’s face, and shall not be aware of his face as it.

C. However, in the case where the title holder of permission succeeds to the title holder of permission, and the former title holder commits an act of violation of the Public Health Act, such as providing obscene acts to the user, any unfavorable disposition resulting therefrom may be imposed only on the former title holder of permission. Barring special circumstances such as the former title holder's knowledge of violation of the Act and succession to the former title holder, it cannot be imposed any disadvantageous disposition against the latter on this ground. Thus, in this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge the special circumstances such as the Plaintiff's succession to the former title holder's illegal act despite being aware of the former title holder's illegal act, the Defendant's disposition of this case against the Plaintiff on the ground of the non-party 1's illegal act shall not be deemed unlawful. [The defendant's succession to the effect of the latter's illegal act is based on the effect of the non-party 1's illegal act, and where the transferee succeeds to the transferee's prior to the transfer of the business (including the above provision of Article 8 (1) 2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above disposition on the ground that the defendant's disposition of this case is illegal, is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yu Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)