2012Guhap5481 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a report on business changes;

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm A, et al.

Head of the Busan Metropolitan Government Maritime Affairs Office

Litigation Performers B, B

March 21, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 25, 2012, the Defendant’s return to the Plaintiff any report on the change in the reported business of public health ( lodging business) to the Plaintiff.

The disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 22, 2009, the Plaintiff is operating a lodging establishment called "D hotel (hereinafter "the hotel of this case") in Busan Shipping Daegu C" (hereinafter "the hotel of this case").

B. The hotel of this case is an aggregate building composed of 7 stories underground, 30 stories above ground, and 416 rooms in total, and has sectional owners for each unit, and the plaintiff has concluded an entrustment contract with each sectional owner and operated the hotel of this case.

C. On August 4, 2010, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the number of guest rooms operated by the Plaintiff was changed from 416 to 380, and from April 18, 201 to 383, respectively, but the fact that the change was made on July 1, 2012 to 223 was not reported.

D. On July 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the effect that the Plaintiff would be subject to an administrative disposition (order for improvement) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the report on the instant hotel business, and that the Plaintiff entered into an extension contract with 220 of the 383 guest rooms operated by the Plaintiff on July 19, 2012, but the 163 guest rooms did not enter into a contract, which was 163, which was 43,321, 87 square meters of the reported business site area of April 18, 201, which was 163 square meters of the reported business site area of 7,682 square meters (17% of the reported business site area of 17,682). Thus, the Plaintiff presented a written opinion to the effect that “the reported business area of the instant hotel does not constitute subject to a report on alteration.”

E. On August 6, 2012, the Defendant asked the Minister of Health and Welfare on the issue of whether the change area should be calculated based on the sum of the section for common use and the section for exclusive use, or whether the change area should be calculated based on the section for exclusive use. On September 12, 2012, the Minister of Health and Welfare sent a reply to the purport that “the Defendant must equally apply the method of calculating the guest room and the area for common use at the time of acceptance of the initial report on business.”

F. Meanwhile, on August 30, 2012, the Defendant issued an administrative disposition (improvement order) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the report on the change of the business reported, and the Plaintiff reported a delay of the business area on September 13, 2012, based only on the section for exclusive use in the guest room’s place of business (hereinafter “instant report”). In calculating the decreased area of the business place on September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff reported a delay of the business area at 35,755 meters (hereinafter “instant report”).

G. On September 13, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to supplement the business report to the effect that the total area of the guest rooms excluded from the business until September 25, 2012, “the Plaintiff shall be calculated by adding the section for exclusive use and the section for common use, thereby re-prepareing the area of the business site.” However, the Defendant did not supplement the report. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s instant report on September 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

was made.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statement 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant issued the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the defendant's order of supplement to compute the total area of the place of business and the section for common use in calculating the decreased area in relation to the report of this case. If the size of the plaintiff's place of business is calculated based on the section for exclusive use, it cannot be deemed that there was a decrease of more than 1/3 of the existing place of business, and therefore, the plaintiff is not obligated to report the change of the place of business. Therefore, the defendant's order of supplement is unreasonable, and the disposition of this case is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Determination

1) First of all, in the event there is a decrease of not less than 1/3 of the area of the reported business site of the hotel of this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the obligation to report the change of the business reported. 2) In full view of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, E shall

7. From 14. to 17. F hotel: (a) operated the instant hotel with the trade name of “F hotel”; (b) on February 22, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired and operated it; (c) on October 4, 2012, G (hereinafter “G”) reported to the Defendant as “GF hotel store” for 169 square meters (area 15, 628. 69 square meters) among the instant hotel; (d) on the instant hotel, two different business entities were allowed to accommodation; (e) on the instant hotel, the Plaintiff’s total area of 43,321 square meters decreased from the Plaintiff’s place of business on September 13, 201 to 18 square meters; and (e) on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s total area of 160,750 square meters and 165 square meters of the area of the Plaintiff’s place of business with the total area of 48 square meters and 184 square meters of the Plaintiff’s place of business as the Plaintiff’s place of business.

Article 1 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "If several sections, which are divided in structure, can be used independently as an independent building," each section shall be the object of ownership as prescribed by this Act, and Articles 10 (1), 11, 12, and 13 shall belong to the co-ownership of all sectional owners, and each co-owner shall use the section for common use according to his/her purpose. Each co-owner's share of the section for common use shall be divided according to his/her ratio of the area of the section for common use and the share of the section for common use shall be included in the area of the section for common use. Co-owner's share of the section for common use shall be subject to the disposition of his/her own section for common use. Co-owner's share of the section for common use shall be excluded from his/her section for common use. Co-owner's right to use the section for common use, right to use the section for common use, and the size of the part for common use and its share shall be calculated based on the total size of the above section for common use.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Sang-hoon

Judges Shin Jae-ju

Judges Kim Sung-soo

A person shall be appointed.