[행정처분취소][판례집불게재]
Coar;
The head of Gwangju Dong-gu
December 11, 1984
The revocation of the permission for the business of a specialized restaurant granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 16, 1983 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
As to the plaintiff who runs the business under the trade name of 19 and 20 underground rooms among the 19 and 4 colon buildings in Gwangju City (hereinafter referred to as "the place of business in this case"), the defendant issued an administrative disposition that revoked the above business on August 16, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of revocation of the business in this case") with the permission of specialized restaurant business from the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4-1.2, 5, 1 to 35, the above order of suspension of the business in this case was not issued for the reasons that the above 1, 3-2, 5-2, 3-2, 5-2, 1, 3-2, 4-2, 1, 1 through 35-1, 5-2, 1, 3-1, 6-1, 3-1, 5-2, 3-1, 3-2, 198-2, 3-2, 198.
Article 26 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides for the reasons such as the cancellation of business permission or the suspension of business and the closure of a business place after considering the above facts and the permission of business is legitimate. Article 25 (1) of the same Act provides that the business operator may order the improvement of facilities within a fixed period of time when the business operator violated the facility standards under Article 22 of the same Act. Article 22 of the same Act provides that the facility standards under Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 24 of the same Act are detailed for the facility improvement order under the above provision, even if the defendant violated the order to improve facilities within the fixed period of time, the order to order the improvement of facilities within the fixed period of time can be viewed as unlawful for the reason that the order to remove facilities within the fixed period of time under Article 25 (1) of the same Act and Article 24 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is also illegal.
In the same way, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the business permission of this case is reasonable, and therefore, it is decided as per Disposition with the defendant's charge.
January 15, 1985
Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)