(영문) 대구고법 1984. 2. 28. 선고 83구281 제1특별부판결 : 상고[이용영업소폐쇄처분취소청구사건][하집1984(1),722]
Even if a business is conducted during the period of suspension of business, it does not constitute grounds for closure.
Even if a user who has received a disposition of business suspension during the period of business suspension, it does not fall under any of the grounds for the disposition of business closure under each subparagraph of Article 14(1) of the User and Beauty Artist Act. However, Article 25(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the order of business closure shall be issued if the user continues to operate the business even after receiving a disposition of business suspension under subparagraph 5 of attached Table 3 of the same Act, but it is not in excess of the guidelines for business performance inside the administrative agency
Article 14 of the User and Beauty Act
January 12, 1982, 81Nu128 delivered on January 12, 198
1,000,000
Head of Busan Metropolitan City and Jung-gu
The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiffs on July 22, 1983 to close a user's establishment as a sanitary No. 1435-1360 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 22, 3, and 2-1, Eul evidence Nos. 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, Eul evidence Nos. 3-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-3, the plaintiffs were transferred to non-party 16-3 of Jung-gu, Busan, Jung-gu, 1983 and operated a business by reporting the establishment of a user facility under the plaintiffs' name on Jun. 8, 1983. However, the defendant violated the facility standards under Article 9 (1) of the Use Company and Beauty Act without establishing a disinfection organization at the above place of business and installing partitions on the first side of the first doctor's entrance at the place of business, the plaintiffs' business was ordered for 15 days from July 15, 200 to August 3, 200 of the same year, and the plaintiffs again closed the business under the suspension period of business operation.
However, even if the business was conducted during the suspension period of business, this does not constitute any ground for closure under any subparagraph of Article 14 (1) of the same Act (the same law does not have any ground for the suspension of business), however, Article 25 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the business shall be ordered to be closed when the business was continued even after receiving a business shortage, but this is merely a ground for the guidelines for the suspension of business inside the administrative agency, and it is not against the general public. Thus, the defendant's disposition cannot be considered as a ground for administrative disposition against the user's establishment established under the Act on Use and Beauty. (See Supreme Court Decision 81Nu128 delivered on January 12, 1982, and Supreme Court Decision 81Nu128 delivered on June 12, 1982. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case against the defendant's order of suspension of business cannot be established for the first reason for the violation of Article 14 (1) 3 of the same Act and Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation because the defendant's disposition of this case is illegal, are justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)