A. Whether a disposition is appropriate in accordance with new statutes and standards for permission when the relevant statutes were amended and enforced after the application for permission (affirmative with qualification)

(b) The case holding that the disposition of non-permission pursuant to the new Enforcement Decree cannot be deemed as delaying the disposition without justifiable grounds, although the Enforcement Decree, which is delegated with specific permission standards, waits for an amendment to enforce the amended Enforcement Decree, was lawful.

(c) Whether a measure of denying an application for a new application for permission of a business establishment in a hotel even though it has been approved, including a business plan for incidental facilities at the time of approval of the business plan for tourist accommodation business (negative)

A. In principle, an administrative act shall be conducted based on the statutes and standards in force at the time of the disposition, and when an application for permission was already made before the amendment of the relevant statutes was enforced after the application for permission, the determination of permission under the statutes at the time of the application for permission shall not be made as a matter of course unless there is a transitional provision in the Addenda to the new Acts and subordinate statutes, which stipulates that the previous provisions shall govern. Even if the competent administrative agency accepts the application for permission and delays the disposition without justifiable grounds, the non-permission disposition shall not be deemed unlawful in accordance with the new Acts and subordinate statutes

B. The case affirming the application since the enforcement decree delegated by the Act on Regulation of Speculative Acts, Etc. to set specific standards for permission for a slot machine business is waiting for the enforcement of the amended enforcement decree, and the new enforcement decree was enforced, it cannot be deemed that the application for non-permission was accepted and delayed the treatment without justifiable grounds.

C. Even if an administrative agency has granted approval including a business plan for incidental facilities at the time of approving the business plan for tourist accommodation business for tourist hotel, it is necessary to obtain a separate business permission from each competent administrative agency with the conditions of permission as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and such approval cannot be deemed as an expression of intent to grant a business license for a business for a business for a business for a business for a hotel within a hotel that turns on the same business plan. Thus, the non-permission disposition cannot be deemed unlawful since it violates

(b)Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act (general). Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc. Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May 22, 1984 (Gong1984, 1145) 88Nu11926 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1312)

Plaintiff Cheongyang Law Firm, Attorneys Gangwon-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The commissioner of Incheon Metropolitan City Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu7384 delivered on July 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. On September 5, 191, the Plaintiff filed a new application for permission with the head of Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to the Act on the Control of Speculative Acts and Subordinate Statutes, which was in force at the time when the Plaintiff intended to operate a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating a business of operating in the underground of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business.

B. The Plaintiff’s application for permission satisfies the requirements for permission under the Act on the Control of Speculative Acts and subordinate statutes, which were enforced at the time of the application, and its Enforcement Decree. Thus, the Defendant should have immediately obtained permission pursuant to the above Act and subordinate statutes without any justifiable reason, and the law was amended and the requirements for permission were changed, thereby failing to meet the requirements for permission. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s delay in the application of the law cannot be attributed

C. In principle, an administrative act shall be conducted based on the statutes and standards in force at the time of the disposition, and when the relevant statutes were amended and enforced before the disposition was made after the approval and permission, the determination of whether to grant permission under the statutes at the time of the application for permission shall not be made as a matter of course unless there is a transitional provision in the Addenda to the new Acts and subordinate statutes that the previous Acts and subordinate statutes were enforced before the enforcement of the new Acts and subordinate statutes. The premise that the non-permission disposition cannot be deemed unlawful in accordance with the new Acts and subordinate statutes and the permission standards, unless there is a transitional provision that

D. Furthermore, from September 5, 191 to December 17 of the same year, the plaintiff applied for permission. Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc., which provides for the requirements for permission for slot electrical business establishment, provides that "where it is deemed particularly necessary for foreign exchange earnings," and "where it is deemed necessary for the promotion of tourism and the attraction of tourists" as one of the requirements for permission, it shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree concerning "where it is deemed particularly necessary," as stipulated in subparagraphs 2 to 1 of the above Article, and it shall be delegated to the Enforcement Decree, but the Enforcement Decree shall not be amended and enforced together with the enforcement of the above new law, and it shall not be enforced until December 17 of the same year, and it shall not be deemed that the new application for permission was rejected by the defendant for permission without any justifiable reason. Thus, the new Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, which was enforced without delay.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding or judgment of the court below and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc. like the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is that the Act on Regulation of Speculative Acts, Etc. amended the Speculative Acts, which was enforced at the time of the plaintiff's application, and the defendant was allowed to grant permission pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes which were enforced at the time of the plaintiff's application, but the defendant delayed permission, which was illegal. However, if the defendant delayed the defendant's decision on permission, the defendant's disposition cannot be deemed to be delayed without any justifiable reason, and in the case of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's decision on whether to grant permission or to grant permission pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes which were not completed by the defendant, even though the defendant was not completed.

3. In addition, the plaintiff filed an application of this case with the permission of this case or with confirmation and confirmation that it is possible to grant permission in the process of preparation work, and trusted it and trusted it, and the defendant's refusal to grant permission is contrary to the principle of trust protection. However, the court below acknowledged that the head of Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor approved the plaintiff's business plan for entertainment rooms (surin electrical business) from among the incidental facilities installed in the hotel around June 8, 1989, and did not recognize that the competent administrative agency, including the defendant, committed the act of promising or confirming that the permission of this case is possible to the plaintiff. The fact-finding of the court below is just, and even if the plaintiff obtained approval including the business plan for incidental facilities at the time of approval of the tourist accommodation business plan, it is necessary to obtain a separate business permission from the competent administrative agency in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the defendant's declaration of intention to grant permission of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful under the principle of trust of the competent administrative agency.

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