B. Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which is merely an administrative order, provides an aggravated measure pursuant to the frequency of violations, and only this does not necessarily mean that there is any legal interest in seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, the effective period of which has elapsed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon by the remaining effect of the disposition after the expiration of the said period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1032, Jan. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3119, Oct. 23, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3625, Jul. 10, 1992; etc.); and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which is only an administrative order, provides an aggravated disposition in accordance with the frequency of violation under Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the disposition of this case is suspended from the business of this case from July 20, 1992 to August 19, 19 of the same year, and there is no evidence to deem that its validity or execution has been suspended, and it is obvious that the above suspension period has lapsed as of the closing date of pleadings in the court below, and there is no particular circumstance that any legal interest has been infringed due to the remaining effect of the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal interest like the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of the precedents of party members.

The precedent cited by the theory is that the Certified Architects Act stipulates the order of suspension of business as the standard requirement for aggravated disposition of cancellation of registration heavier than that of the order of suspension of business, and the case is different from this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)