An order to improve facilities under Article 25 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act on the grounds that a building for a parking lot attached to a building is used as an amusement restaurant, and a disposition to revoke business permission on the grounds that the order is violated (negative)

In light of the contents of the facility standards by business type under Article 22 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if the use of the building, which is the place of business, is an entertainment restaurant, is not stipulated as the facility standards for food entertainment business. Thus, even if the use of part of the building, which is the place of business permitted for food entertainment business, is used as an attached parking lot for a building, not an entertainment restaurant, the reason alone does not constitute an order for facility repair under Article 25 (1) 3 of the Food Sanitation Act. Thus, the revocation of the business license on the ground of violation of the order is unlawful.

Articles 25(1) and 22 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 24(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, attached Table 91 of the Food Sanitation Act.

Plaintiff

The head of Dong-si in Gwangju

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu84 delivered on January 15, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the reason why the defendant revoked the permission to operate the amusement restaurant business of this case to the plaintiff was that the plaintiff violated the defendant's order to repair facilities under Article 25 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and the ground and content of the order to repair facilities issued by the defendant to the plaintiff was that the ground and content of the order to repair facilities issued by the defendant to the plaintiff was 92 square meters of the underground floor of the building used by the plaintiff after obtaining permission for the place of business is 33 square meters of the building's use as a entertainment restaurant, and the remaining 58-

However, Article 22 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the purpose of the building, which is the place of business, shall be an entertainment restaurant, as the facility standards for food entertainment businesses belonging to the plaintiff's type of business, even if examining the facility standards by type of business under Article 25 (1) of the same Act, and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the use of the building, which is the place of business, shall be an entertainment restaurant, shall not be defined as one of the facility standards (see attached Tables 9 and 1-C of Article 24 of the same Enforcement Rule). Thus, even if the use of the building, among the underground floor of the building, which is the place where the plaintiff obtained permission for business, is used as an attached parking lot of 58 square meters from among the 92 square meters of the underground floor of the building, which is the place where the plaintiff obtained permission for business, is not a entertainment restaurant, the ground for revocation of the order shall not be subject to an order to repair the facilities under Article 25 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, because it is not included in the facility or the facility other facilities.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles under Article 26 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and the plaintiff's business license violates Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act and Article 42 (3) of the Building Act, and thus the defendant's business license revocation disposition is legitimate, as the defendant's business license is in violation of Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act and Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act is not effective at the time of the revocation of the business license of this case, but is based on

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju