(b) Whether the authority to order business suspension for medical institutions can be delegated by municipal ordinances;

B. According to Articles 30(3) and 51(1) of the Medical Service Act, the authority of the Do governor to order medical institutions established by reporting to the Do governor to suspend medical services is not the Minister of Health and Welfare. In light of the pertinent laws and regulations such as Article 117 of the Constitution, Article 9(1) and (2) of the Local Autonomy Act, and the nature of the relevant affairs, etc., the Governor’s order to suspend medical services to the competent local government or public organizations or its institutions may be delegated or entrusted by Municipal Ordinance pursuant to Article 95(2) of the Local Autonomy Act.

1. In determining the illegality of the order of suspension of the medical service of this case against the plaintiff pursuant to Article 51 (1) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 4732 of Jan. 7, 1993; hereinafter the same) of Sep. 3, 1993, the court below held that the defendant's legitimate authority to issue the above order is the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Do governor, and Article 64 of the same Act provides that "the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Do governor's authority under this Act may be delegated partially to the Do governor or the Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, or the head of the public health clinic." However, the court below held that Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act delegated the authority to the subordinate agency of Article 51 (1) of the same Act to the defendant as the order of suspension of the administrative authority of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Ordinance of delegation of the administrative authority of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and it is unlawful.

2. Article 64 of the Medical Service Act is nothing more than a single authorized provision that the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Do governor’s authority may be delegated to subordinate administrative agencies prescribed by Presidential Decree, and does not be construed as an exclusive provision that limits the legal form with regard to the basis of delegation of these authority by Presidential Decree.

In addition, according to Articles 30(3) and 51(1) of the same Act, the authority to order the medical institutions established by reporting to the Do Governor (referring to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; see Article 17(1) of the same Act) as the council members established by the plaintiff shall be placed in the Do Governor, who is not the Minister of Health and Welfare. In light of relevant laws and regulations such as Article 117 of the Constitution, Article 9(1) and (2) of the Local Autonomy Act, and the nature of the affairs thereof, the affairs concerning the supervision of the Do Governor shall be placed in the affairs of the local government as the welfare of the residents, and the state affairs shall not be deemed to fall under the affairs of the local government (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu18754 delivered on May

Therefore, the Do Governor's order to suspend medical services under Article 51 (1) of the Medical Service Act may be delegated or entrusted to the competent local government, public organization, or its agency pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act. Thus, if the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority and the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority provide that the above authority of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor shall be delegated to the defendant (re-entrusted) through the Seoul Gangnam-gu head of Seoul Metropolitan Government, it shall be based on a legitimate ground, and

Nevertheless, the court below held that the provision of Article 64 of the Medical Service Act is an exclusive provision that limits the legal basis for delegation by Presidential Decree, or that the Do governor's order to suspend medical service under Article 51 (1) of the same Act was a disposition taken by a person who does not have the authority to take the disposition of this case by misunderstanding the affairs such as an order to suspend medical service, etc.

3. Therefore, 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 Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)