1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) No. 19 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, on July 16, 2018, the plaintiff was sentenced to a stay of sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million on the facts charged on July 16, 2018 in the Jeonju District Court 2016Kadan1266, 2017 Godan270 (merger), and (b) the appellate court appealed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal on November 21, 2018, but the appellate court was sentenced to a final judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal on November 21, 2018, and became final and conclusive around that time, except that it is stated in the corresponding reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Since the suspension period prescribed in the disposition of this case has already expired and the validity of the disposition of this case has expired, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition.

In a case where the effective period of a punitive administrative disposition is specified in the relevant legal doctrine, the administrative disposition becomes null and void due to the lapse of that period, and thus there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the administrative disposition after that period has elapsed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du14471, Feb. 23, 199; 2005Du2421, Apr. 14, 2006): Provided, however, the effect of a punitive administrative disposition has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the period of sanctions prescribed in the relevant administrative disposition, but it is determined that a punitive administrative disposition (hereinafter referred to as “prior administrative disposition”) shall be made in the future by taking the form of aggravated grounds or premise for the imposition of a punitive administrative disposition (hereinafter referred to as “prior administrative disposition”) as prescribed in the Enforcement Rule, and thus, legal interest remains remaining due to the external appearance of such disposition, such as the case where there exists a concern that the preceding administrative disposition may be subject to aggravated grounds or premise.