[1] The subject of judgment in a case requiring the validity and suspension of execution of an administrative disposition and whether the decision can be a ground for objection to the legality of the administrative disposition itself

[2] The meaning of "damage difficult to recover", which is a requirement under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] In a case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, whether it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and whether it is necessary to suspend the validity or execution of the administrative disposition, i.e., the existence of the requirement under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the decision dismissing the application for suspension of validity on the ground that it fails to meet such requirements, shall not

[2] The "damage that is difficult to recover" as a requirement to suspend the effect or enforcement of an administrative disposition, etc. under Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to not only a case where monetary compensation is impossible, but also a case where monetary compensation is not possible, but also a case where monetary compensation is made by the party who is subject to an administrative disposition under the social concept is unable to withstanding for reference, or where reference is considerably difficult.

[1] Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 94Du42 dated September 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2879), Supreme Court Order 94Du57 dated March 30, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1763) / [2] Supreme Court Order 86Du5 dated March 21, 1986 (Gong1986, 791), Supreme Court Order 92Du7 dated April 29, 192 (Gong192, 2149), Supreme Court Order 92Du30 dated August 7, 1992 (Gong192, 3146) dated 94Du35 dated October 11, 1994 (Gong1945 dated May 25, 1993; Supreme Court Order 99Du2594 decided May 25, 195)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Order 95Da888 dated September 12, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In a case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, whether it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, that is, whether the administrative disposition itself needs to suspend its validity or execution, etc., that is, the existence or absence of the requirement under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is subject to the determination, so the decision dismissing the application for suspension of its validity due to a lack of such requirement cannot be deemed a ground for objection with regard to the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and the "damage that is difficult to recover" as a requirement to suspend its effect or enforcement of an administrative disposition, etc. under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, unless there are special circumstances, as well as damage that cannot be compensated in money, which refers not only to a case where a monetary compensation is impossible, but also to a case where a party subject to an administrative disposition under social norms is unable to with reference or where it is considerably difficult to refer to it (see Supreme Court Order 95Du22, Jun. 7, 1995).

Therefore, among the grounds for re-appellants' grounds for re-appeal, it is clear that the disposition of business revocation in this case violates the provisions of the Food Sanitation Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and it is illegal due to deviation from the scope of discretionary authority, etc. The grounds for re-appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal. Since the Re-appellant has invested a little amount of KRW 150,000,000,000, which is almost all assets for the business in this case and operated its business in this case, if the validity of the business cancellation is not suspended, it would be an absolute compromise for the business operation in this case, and thereby, the situation may result in a threat of living of the Re-Appellant as well as his family and employees, which may result in damage not compensated in money due to the continuation of the disposition in this case, and even after examining the records, the court below's rejection of the application in this case's purport is without merit and without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)