(b) The case holding that a disposition to revoke permission for accommodation business is not a deviation of discretion, on the grounds that a female manager subjected to a disposition to suspend his/her business for reasons of anti-social acts, such as arranging for prostitution or providing a place, etc.

(b) The case holding that the cancellation of the permission for accommodation business does not deviate from discretionary power in light of the contents and degree of the Plaintiff's illegal act, since the Plaintiff, an operator of a inn, was subject to a disposition of business suspension for one-month period due to the reasons of anti-social act, such as arranging the act of prostitution or providing the place of prostitution, and the Plaintiff’s act of getting profits while engaging in the business again during the period of business suspension is the reason why the Plaintiff’s act of regulating the above act was committed, and the Plaintiff’s act of cancelling

Article 23 (1) of the Public Health Act provides that a disposition authority shall have discretion to select an appropriate kind of administrative disposition within a reasonable scope, taking into account all the circumstances according to the type and severity of violation of the Act by a business operator, and even if Article 41 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Act provides for the criteria for administrative disposition, the above Enforcement Rule is in form, which is merely a provision of the internal rules of administrative agency, and it has the nature of an administrative order issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare to establish guidelines for exercising its authority against the administrative agency and employees, and it does not bind the administrative agency and employees with discretion guaranteed by Article 23 (1) of the above Act or externally bound citizens (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5133, Dec. 22, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu157979, May 22, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 200Nu1973979, Jun. 19, 1997).

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's disposition of this case where the plaintiff's business was revoked on July 21, 1988 with the defendant's permission for accommodation business, and the above female employees had been ordered to suspend business for 1 month from October 23, 1989 to November 21 of the same year due to the reasons that the above female employees had provided their leaps with their lesiums with their lesiums and places over several times. The defendant was found to have violated the above disposition of this case's order of suspension of business on February 21, 1990 with the ground that the above female employees violated the above order of suspension of business since October 23, 1989 to 19. The defendant was found to have violated the above order of suspension of business on November 8, 198, and it was hard for the plaintiff to obtain the above order of suspension of business due to the reason that the above female employees violated the order of suspension of business on February 21, 1990.

However, according to each description of evidence Nos. 5 (resident registration record card), Nos. 9 (Interrogation of Suspect) and Nos. 8-1, and evidence Nos. 8-2 (Notification of Punishment and Permission-Related Crime, and Facts charged), the plaintiff, who is the manager of the above female house, has been in charge of operating the above female house. It is recognized that the plaintiff was discovered while engaging in the above business during the period of suspension and was arrested and prosecuted for the violation of the Public Health Act, and that the reason for the original disposition of suspension of business was also anti-social acts committed during the period of suspension of business, and that the plaintiff again obtained profits while engaging in the business again during the period of suspension of business would distort the above acts, and that the plaintiff also predicted more heavy administrative sanctions against the violation, the revocation of the permission for accommodation business during the period of suspension of business cannot be deemed to deviate from discretion when considering the contents and degree of the plaintiff's unlawful act in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the denial of discretion in the disposition of revocation of the permission for accommodation business, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)