1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the additional argument made by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, they are cited by applying the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the additional argument

A. Article 2(1)4 and Article 8(3) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide for "emulsion" as the scope of a user's business, while Articles 2(1)5 and 8(3) of the same Act, Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide for "the head scarra" as the scope of a beauty artist's business. "the head scarra" included in the scope of a barber's business refers to the reduction of the head of a male by using alian, and "the head scarra" included in the scope of a beauty artist's business means "the head scarra" in the scope of a beauty artist's business.

Furthermore, while the examination subjects for acquiring the qualifications of a barber include items to be assessed against the structure, maintenance, and method of use of the male head, the examination subjects for acquiring the qualifications of a beauty artist do not include items to be assessed related to bales among beauty equipment.

Therefore, the reduction of the head of a male by a beauty artist is a deviation from the scope of the business of beauty art business and is engaged in a non-licenseing business, and the defendant who is a beauty artist is prohibited from taking the head of a male.

B. Determination of Article 2(1)5 and Article 8(3) of the Public Health Control Act, Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act merely include “satisfurging” in the scope of a beauty artist’s business, but does not restrict the method thereof.