(a) Whether an administrative disposition is taken against a small-scale performance hall which does not require permission for installation (affirmative) and the disposition agency thereof;

(b) The case holding that the disposition to suspend the business of a performance hall is unlawful on the grounds of the Cheongju market which is entrusted only with the authority to dispose of under Article 12 of the Public Performance Act by the Cheongbuk-do Governor; and

A. The proviso of Article 7(1) of the Public Performance Act does not require permission for the establishment of a small-scale performance hall under Article 8(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. If a person who establishes and operates a performance hall has the authority to take any administrative disposition against the person who establishes and operates the performance hall, if such administrative disposition is to be applied to a performance hall for which the permission is not required, it cannot be said that the administrative disposition can not be taken solely on the ground that there is no permission authority for the small performance hall. In this case, it shall be deemed that the office falling under the permission authority under Article 7 of the Public Performance Act can be conducted.

B. If the Cheongbuk-do governor, the public performance place establishment permission authority, delegated the authority to suspend the business under Article 12 of the Public Performance Act to the Cheongbuk-do Mayor pursuant to Article 2 of the Ordinance on Delegation of Affairs to the Cheongbuk-do, and did not delegate the authority under Article 30 of the Motion Pictures Act to the performance place manager, the suspension of business on the ground of the violation of the obligation to screen domestic motion pictures to the performance place manager shall be deemed illegal as an administrative disposition conducted by the competent

(a)Articles 7 and 12 of the Public Performance Act;

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 2, 201

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5845 delivered on November 3, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In accordance with the proviso of Article 7 (1) of the Public Performance Act, a small-scale performance hall under Article 8 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act may be established and operated without the permission of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do governor (hereinafter referred to as the "permission agency") which has jurisdiction over the planned establishment area, but this is merely a provision that the permission agency does not require the permission to establish such small-scale performance hall. If the permission agency has the authority to take any administrative disposition against the person who has established and operated the performance hall, it shall not be allowed to take such administrative disposition only on the ground that the permission agency does not exist if it shall be applied to a performance hall not requiring the permission of such administrative disposition, but for a small performance hall not requiring the permission. In this case, it shall be deemed that the permission agency under Article 7 of the Public Performance Act can do so.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the small-scale performance venue of this case constructed and operated by the plaintiff constitutes a small-scale performance hall under the Public Performance Act, and such small-scale performance hall is established and operated only by the registration of performance hall under Article 3 of the Public Performance Act (which is referred to as Article 4 of the judgment of the court below) without permission from the competent Do governor, and where the manager violates the obligation of screening local movies, the "permission Agency" which can suspend the business of this case (the original court decided that the disposition of suspension of the business of this case was illegal) on the ground that there was no "Permission Agency" which can suspend the business of this case (the original court decided that the disposition of suspension of the business of the performance hall of this case was illegal

However, according to Article 30 of the Motion Pictures Act, when the annual running days of domestic motion pictures of a performance hall fall short of the annual running days without justifiable grounds, the Minister of Culture and Tourism may request the permission agency for the performance hall to suspend its business for a fixed period of not more than three months, and the permission agency for the performance hall shall, if so requested, suspend its business without delay, except in extenuating circumstances. Thus, even if the Plaintiff violated the obligation to screen the motion pictures of a performance hall, and the permission agency for the performance hall violates the obligation to suspend its business for this reason, the person who can conduct it in this case becomes the permission agency, and the Defendant cannot be said to have the authority to conduct such administrative disposition in his name, unless he is delegated with his authority.

However, according to the court below's determination, the Cheongbuk-do governor delegated the authority to suspend the business under Article 12 of the Public Performance Act and did not delegate the authority under Article 30 of the Motion Pictures Act to the defendant under Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Delegation of the Cheongbuk-do Affairs. Thus, the disposition of this case by the defendant should be deemed unlawful as an administrative disposition, unless it is authorized by an administrative agency, and the defendant is delegated with the authority under Articles 7 and 24 of the Public Performance Act, and it cannot be said that the defendant has the authority to suspend the business under the Motion Pictures Act

Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the instant performance hall business suspension disposition issued by the Defendant is unlawful is justifiable and without merit.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)