Whether amusement facilities such as slot electricity business operators are included in accommodation facilities of tourist accommodation business or become ancillary facilities thereto (negative), and whether “entertainment facilities” designated for the purpose of use in the building permit for tourist hotel buildings refers to slot electricity business establishments (negative)

Even if a slot electric shop is used as an ancillary facility to a first-class tourist hotel, the tourist accommodation business operated by a tourist hotel shall be equipped with facilities suitable for accommodation of tourists, and it shall not be deemed that the amusement facilities such as slot electric business are included or incidental facilities, as a matter of course, in accommodation facilities of tourist accommodation business which provide meals, and there is no ground to view that the use of the “entertainment” designated in the building permit for a tourist hotel building refers to the slot electric business.

Article 3 of the former Act on the Control of Speculative Acts, Etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 4339, Mar. 8, 1991); Article 66(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365, May 30, 192); Article 66(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655, May 30, 1992); Article 3(1)5 of the Tourism Promotion Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7378 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1883) 92Nu8590 delivered on October 9, 1992

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu22638 delivered on April 8, 1992

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

The defendant litigant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) determined that the Plaintiff’s construction of the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 1 and the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 1 and the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 2 were illegal on October 21, 198; (b) the term “one-class hotel-type No. 1 and five-story hotel-type No. 1 and the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 2 were located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the term “one-class hotel No. 2” in the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 3 and the term “one-class hotel No. 2” in the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act for the purpose of using the above-mentioned hotel-type No. 5 and the term “one-class hotel-type No. 2” in the above-mentioned building’s construction permit for the purpose of using the 1st five-year hotel-type hotel-type No. 2 and the term of the above construction permit is no. 98.

2. However, when the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government grants a building permit to the hotel building of this case, the original adjudication that the "entertainment room" designated for the purpose of the first floor above the ground level refers to the amusement facilities stipulated in Article 6 (1) 3 and attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which are the amusement facilities stipulated in Article 6 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, shall not be deemed to have no legal basis.

Even though the above business is currently used as an incidental facility to the tourist hotel, in light of the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Tourism Promotion Act, the tourist accommodation business operated by the tourist hotel is not a business that provides tourists with facilities suitable for accommodation and food, but it cannot be deemed that the amusement facilities such as the slot electricity business in this case are included in the accommodation facilities of the tourist accommodation business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7378 delivered on May 12, 192) or its ancillary facilities as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7378 delivered on May 12, 192). The fact that the above slot electricity business is currently used as an ancillary facility to the tourist hotel building does not necessarily mean that the use of the "entertainment room" designated by the permission to construct the tourist hotel building refers to the slot electricity business.

In addition, even though the above hotel's location is prohibited from constructing a quasi-residential area as it falls under a quasi-residential area, even though the building permission and completion inspection for amusement facilities was conducted, the "entertainment room" designated for the purpose of use does not necessarily mean that the amusement facility has complied with a business establishment among amusement facilities, and rather, the above "entertainment room" refers to a business establishment under the Public Health Act which allows public amusement with amusement facilities, and it can be viewed that the above "entertainment room" refers to a business establishment with a business establishment under the name or trade name of the business establishment issued by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City when granting a speculative business permission to the plaintiff. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the "entertainment room", which is the purpose of use designated for the building permission, just because it was the time of the original judgment that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the Building Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)