In fact, the order of facility repair to the operator of the user station and the validity of the changed operator of the user station.

Even if there was a change in the name of the founder of the business establishment at the time of issuing an order to repair facilities of the pertinent user center and the order to suspend the business, if the non-party (A) continued to conduct the business before and after the change in the name of the founder of the said business establishment, the order to repair facilities of the above (A) shall have its effect even after the change in the name of the founder of the business establishment

Articles 12 and 14 of the User and Beauty Act, a barber, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Beauty Act

Attorney Park Young-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Busan Metropolitan City and Jung-gu

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu281 delivered on February 28, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Under the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs are running a business by reporting the establishment of a user under the names of the plaintiffs, which is located in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter omitted) operated by the non-party. The defendant violated the facility standards under Article 9 (1) of the Act without installing a disinfection engine at the entrance of the above place of business and the first chair, and issued a disposition of suspension of business for 15 days from July 20 to August 3 of the same year against the plaintiffs, and the disposition of closure of the above place of business was conducted for 7.22 again on July 22 of the same year, but it did not constitute any ground for closure of the above place of business under Article 14 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the defendant's order of suspension of business under Article 14 (1) of the Act was not established for the same period of suspension of business, and the defendant's order of suspension of business was not established for 15 days from July 20 to 3 of the same year, and thus, it cannot be viewed as unlawful.

2. Article 14(1) of the Lighting and Beauty Artist Act may close a place of business when it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall provide that the person who established the relevant place of business shall order him to supplement or correct the violation within a fixed period not exceeding 20 days, and shall order him to promptly close the relevant place of business when he fails to comply with the order within the said period, and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Ordinance of the Public Health and Social Society) provides that the standards of administrative disposition shall be set and the standards of administrative disposition shall be set and Article 9(1) of the Act shall be set forth in attached Table 3, if the structure and equipment of the facilities fall short of the standards in violation of Article 9(1) of the Act.

3. According to the records, according to the evidence Nos. 4 and 7 evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the non-party, who did not dispute the establishment of the above ○○○ Use Center, at the time of management of the above ○○○ Use Center, the defendant ordered the non-party to repair the facilities to correct the violation of the above ○○ Use Center from May 19 to 5.31 of the same year, and the Dong did not comply with the above order. Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 evidence Nos. 7-1 of the above non-party, the plaintiff Nos. 2 is changing the name of the above ○ Use Center to the above non-party's manager, and even after the non-party's participation in the business of the above ○○ Use Center, the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 1 actually succeeded to the change of the name of the above ○○ Use Center's establishment after the above non-party's business suspension order had been issued to the non-party's founder at the time of the above 2 business suspension order.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of business suspension for 15 days against the plaintiffs, who are the title holder of the establishment of the above ○○ Use Facility, was not implemented despite the order of improvement of the above ○○ Use Facility, and the defendant's disposition that ordered the closure of the facility pursuant to Article 14 of the above Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act and Article 25 of the above Enforcement Rule is legitimate.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that concluded the disposition of this case as illegal for the above reasons is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition of closure of a business office. Thus, the decision of the court below is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the judgment of the court below for the above reasons.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)