(a) Whether a separate business license should be obtained with respect to the business of individual incidental facilities, even if a business plan for incidental facilities has been approved including a business plan for incidental facilities in the approval of a business plan for tourist hotel;

(b) Whether special bath facilities, such as Turkey, are included in accommodation business of tourist accommodation business or incidental facilities thereto;

(a) Even if an administrative agency has granted approval including a business plan for incidental facilities when it approves a plan for a tourist accommodation business for a tourist hotel, it shall obtain a separate business license from the competent administrative agency with the conditions of permission as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

B. Article 2(1)12 and 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that accommodation facilities and amusement facilities are separate buildings, respectively. Article 3(1)2 of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4645 of Dec. 27, 1993) provides that tourist accommodation business is a business which provides facilities suitable for accommodation of tourists and provides them with food and drink. Thus, special bathing facilities such as Turkey can not be included in accommodation facilities or incidental facilities for tourist accommodation business as amusement facilities.

A. Article 7(1) and Article 3(1) of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4645 of Dec. 27, 1993); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general Administrative Disposition]

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13813 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 474). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7378 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 183)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Cho Hanbur Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Head of Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu1081 delivered on October 20, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

Even if an administrative agency has approved the business plan for incidental facilities when it approves a tourist accommodation business plan for a tourist hotel, it shall obtain a separate business license from each competent administrative agency with the conditions of permission as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13813, Dec. 8, 192; 92Nu13, Dec. 8, 1992); Articles 3(1), 4(1), and 5(1)1 of the Public Health Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Act; subparagraph 2(e) of attached Table 1; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; subparagraph 14(b) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Act.

According to the records, the plaintiff is recognized as having failed to use its business as a special public bath under the Building Act or to be equipped with Turkey facilities and equipment under the Public Health Act except for a tourist operator registered as a tourist hotel business by making a type of business as a tourist hotel pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4645 of Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) and approved the modification of the business plan for the business of Turkey, which is an ancillary facility, pursuant to Article 4 (4) of the Act. Thus, the court below's decision that the return of this case by the court below is lawful regardless of the application of the new business permission restriction order by the Minister of Health and Welfare is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal

(2) On the second ground for appeal

Article 2 (1) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that accommodation facilities and amusement facilities shall be separately used for separate buildings; Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act provides that a tourist accommodation business shall be equipped with facilities suitable for accommodation of tourists and provide them with food and drink; thus, special public bath facilities such as Turkey shall not be included in accommodation facilities of tourist-use facility business or any incidental facilities, which fall under tourist-use facility business under Article 2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7378, May 12, 1992). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it shall not be accepted to attack the judgment of the court below in the opposite opinion. The argument is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)