It is the theory that the suspension of execution of an administrative disposition is recognized as an exception to the so-called principle of non-suspension of execution, that is, the requirements for the suspension of execution under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act, i.e., it is likely to cause irreparable damage due to the active execution of a disposition, and that it is allowed only where the suspension of execution is not likely to have a serious impact on the public welfare, and it refers to losses which cannot be recovered in cash unless there are special circumstances. However, this means not only monetary compensation but also tangible and intangible damages which can be impossible for the party to whom an administrative disposition is taken under the social concept or considerably difficult, and in any case, the issue of whether the above requirements are satisfied is just and decided by the existence of the need to request temporary suspension of execution of an administrative disposition in accordance with the specific case. According to the records of the case, the court below reviewed the other party to whom the special appellant obtained a license for Article 10 (1) 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act with respect to the cancellation of execution and the record of the above administrative disposition, which violates the above provision of Article 15 (16) of the Liquor Act.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)