[영업허가취소처분취소][집32(3)특,260;공1984.7.1.(731),1042]
If the parties fail to notify the parties of the final judgment on the revocation of the disposition of suspension of business which is the premise of the revocation of business permission, the court's duty of explanation.
In this case, there is a disposition of business suspension on the ground that a minor has entered the minor or re-enters the minor, and there is a disposition of business cancellation. The court below did not say that the plaintiff was subject to business suspension disposition on the ground that the minor has entered the court below before the case, but it did not say that the administrative litigation on the administrative disposition is continued.
The court below's decision that there was an error in the exercise of the right to request a tin or in the incomplete hearing because it did not go against the guidance to request a tin and there is no reason or necessity to review the issue, and since the cancellation of the above disposition of suspension of business became final and conclusive.
Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
The head of Dong-si in Gwangju
Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu70 delivered on January 10, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The gist of the grounds of appeal is that, with respect to the disposition of the suspension of business for 15 days on the ground that the minor was admitted to the plaintiff management restaurant prior to the case of this case, the court below decided in the administrative litigation No. 83Gu46 of Apr. 23, 1983, and in the administrative litigation No. 83Nu483 of party members, the cancellation of the disposition of the suspension of business should be deliberated by exercising the right to request explanation as to this point, although the court below did not reach this point, it was erroneous in the incomplete hearing due to the non-exercise of the right to request explanation.
As a result of the review of the records, the plaintiff merely stated that he was subject to the disposition of business suspension prior to the instant case, and there was no Korean-Maddi as to whether the administrative litigation against the administrative disposition continues to exist. The court below's decision does not put an indication on the issue, but does not have any reason or necessity to review the issue. Thus, the court below's decision's failure to exercise the right to ask for explanation or to make an incomplete deliberation and criticism of the measure of the court below is not justified, and the argument on this point is not adopted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)