B. Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation and nullification of the regulation under the Administrative Rules against a person who was punished as an improper businessman

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition has no benefit in the lawsuit due to the lapse of the effective period during the period of the final appeal

B. According to the accounting rule which is merely an administrative order, a person for whom one year has not passed since he was punished as an unjust businessman cannot be a joint guarantor of the construction contract ordered by the State, or a person for whom one year has not passed since the expiration of the restriction period is subject to restrictions on participation in the construction contract ordered by the State, shall not be deemed to be a party to a certain construction contract, even if he is not able to receive a preferential payment for a period of one year or more after the expiration of the restriction period, which is merely an actual and economic disadvantage,

C. The case that the judgment of the court below is reversed and incinerated on the ground that a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition had no interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition due to the lapse of the period of validity of the administrative disposition while the appeal is pending.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The effective period of the administrative disposition itself shall be determined by statutes or dispositions.

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining form of a disposition after the lapse of the period, there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation or nullification of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3625, Jul. 10, 1992). Paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2200.04-127-2 (Guidelines for Selection of Joint Guarantee of Construction Contract and Handling of Breach of Duties on December 5, 1990) of the Accounting Rules, which are merely an administrative order, which is an administrative order, a person for whom one year has not passed since the person was punished as an unjust businessman, cannot be a joint guarantor of the construction contract ordered by the State, or a person for whom one year has not passed since the date of restriction under Article 2 of the Accounting Rules -131-14 (Notice of Prohibition on July 20, 194) cannot be deemed to be a certain disadvantage to the other party to the construction contract, even if there is any factual interest in the above.

According to the records and the written reply submitted by the defendant litigation performer at the trial, when the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of this case from the defendant to December 15, 1993 by the same date as of January 14, 1994, which restricts the qualification for participation in bidding as unjust enterprisers for one month from the same date as of December 15, 1993, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the above disposition with the court below, and applied for suspension of the effect of the disposition of this case on December 29, 1993, and decided to suspend the effect of the disposition of this case until the pronouncement of judgment on the merits of the above case was rendered on February 21, 1995, but the decision against the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's claim on February 21, 1995. The defendant's disposition of this case was invalidated by the execution of the remaining 16-day disciplinary measure for the remaining 16-day period from the same date as of February 22, 1995. Moreover

Therefore, this case is deemed to have become illegal as the lapse of the effective period in the court of final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1045, Jan. 17, 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect, and it is reversed, and the court of this case directly decides that the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed on the ground that there is no interest in the lawsuit as above, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)