Whether the provisions of attached Table 12 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act are applicable (negative)

Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides for the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act as attached Table 12, this form is referred to in Ministerial Ordinance, but it has the nature of administrative order that sets the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it is not hard to externally bind citizens or courts.

Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act, attached Table 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2816 Decided December 6, 198

Plaintiff

Head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu798 delivered on September 6, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act as attached Table 12 in attached Table 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, the form is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry. However, the nature of the administrative order is determined by the internal business rules of the administrative agency, so it does not externally have the nature of administrative order, and it does not have any power to externally bind citizens or courts, and therefore, the legality of the disposition under Article 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act is not determined depending on whether it conforms to the above rules, but should be determined based on whether it conforms to the provisions of the above Act and the purport thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2816, Dec. 6, 198).

In addition, if the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant's disposition of business suspension in this case goes beyond the discretionary scope, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit, and that the same applies to the case where the defendant made such disposition in accordance with the criteria under Article 53 subparagraph 12 of the above Enforcement Rule, and the court below did not make the above decision on the ground that the plaintiff made a large investment and it is a large-scale company with many employees.

Therefore, the argument of the lawsuit that criticizes the judgment of the court below from the opposite position cannot be accepted, and there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)