A. Whether the administrative responsibility of the title holder of business permission who did not know the violation of the administrative laws and regulations of employees is imposed (affirmative)

(b) Whether the attached Table 15 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act exists (negative)

A. The name of a food entertainment business license holder under the Food Sanitation Act is responsible for the administrative responsibility of employees for the violation of administrative laws and regulations, and it does not change because employees were not aware of such violation.

B. Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 58 of the same Act as attached Table 15 of the same Act, the form is referred to in Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but the nature of the criteria for administrative disposition is merely setting the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies. The Minister of Health and Welfare has the nature of an administrative order issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare to set the guidelines for the exercise of authority and authority against the relevant administrative agencies and employees, and it cannot be said that the discretion guaranteed by Article 58(1) of the same Act

(a) Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 58 of the same Act and attached Table 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Nu197 delivered on December 11, 1979 (Gong1980, 12549) 79Nu251 delivered on May 13, 1980 (Gong1980, 12855). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6730 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 547) (Gong1991, 1656) delivered on May 14, 1991

Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu18292 delivered on October 29, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The name of a food entertainment business license holder under the Food Sanitation Act shall be subject to administrative responsibilities due to an employee's violation of administrative laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu197 delivered on December 11, 1979), and as long as the employee did not prevent a violation of laws and regulations, it shall not be deemed that the employee did not know it differently. The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. 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 15, this form is referred to in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but its nature is merely the fact that the Minister of Health and Welfare has the nature of an administrative order issued for setting guidelines for exercising official authority against the administrative agencies and employees, and it cannot be said that the Minister is bound by discretion guaranteed under Article 58(1) of the Food Sanitation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu773, Apr. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu6730, Jan. 23, 199; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6606, Jul. 12, 1991). Therefore, even if the disposition is in violation of the guidelines for exercising official authority, there is no problem of illegality.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, even when considering the size of the amount invested by the plaintiffs in the business office of this case, the number of employees, and other various circumstances, the court below judged that the disposition of this case by the defendant considerably deviates from the scope of discretion in light of the plaintiffs' violation of laws and regulations. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretion in administrative disposition. We do not

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)