The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The theory of lawsuit does not appear to be to criticize the judgment below by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court. However, even if the judgment below is examined by the records, the court below cannot be deemed to have erred by the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of evidentiary evidence

The issue is groundless.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

Article 51 of the Medical Service Act provides that the Minister of Health and Welfare may delegate this authority to the Do governor when granting the authority to suspend the medical service to the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Do governor under Article 51. According to these provisions, it is essential to delegate the authority under the Medical Service Act to a subordinate institution to the Minister of Health and Welfare. The Do governor should not delegate this authority to the Minister of Health and Welfare.

Therefore, even if the Do governor delegated the authority prescribed in Article 51 of the Medical Service Act to the head of the Gun, and the head of the Gun made a disposition under the same Article, such a disposition shall be deemed null and void as a disposition made by an unauthorized person. In the same purport in this case, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of business suspension against the theory of lawsuit made by the head of the Gun was null and void as a matter of course is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution or misapprehension of the legal principles

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)