(a) The case holding that the disposition of product suspension for three months of the production suspension of the apap and the sap and the sap and the sap and the sap are an unlawful disposition that abused discretion;

B. Whether the attached Table 12 of Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Bolith Ordinance of the Ministry of Bolith, Nov. 30, 1989) (negative)

A. The case holding that in the case of an exaggerated advertisement for jute and jutete, if not only cited an objective academic book stating the efficacy and effect of the request, but also the said request is not a harmful food by itself, the plaintiff company is promoting the qualitative improvement of its products by collecting, using and sterilizing high-quality milk, the disposition of product suspension for three months in the above exaggerated advertisement is an unlawful disposition that abused its discretion because it is too harsh to the plaintiff company.

B. Even if Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Bolith, Nov. 30, 1989) set the criteria for administrative disposition pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Food Sanitation Act as attached Table 12 under attached Table 12, this form is referred to in Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. However, its nature is determined by the internal rules for handling affairs of administrative agencies, and it does not externally have the nature of administrative order and it is difficult to bind citizens or courts.

A.B. Article 59(1)(a) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 11(1) of the same Act, Article 6(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 27(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Bolith, Nov. 30, 1989) and attached Table 12 of the same Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2816 decided Dec. 6, 1988; 88Nu2816 (Gong1989,109); 88Nu773 decided Apr. 11, 1989 (Gong1989,764); 89Nu6730 decided Jan. 23, 1990 (Gong190,547)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

The Gangwon-do Governor

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu15903 delivered on July 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Even if the plaintiff company's jute and jute's juices in this case, which were manufactured and sold, are somewhat recognized as effective and effective for a certain disease, there may be problems pointed out in novels, and thus, it may result in a violation of the legislative purpose of the Food Sanitation Act to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by foods. However, according to the records, the advertising of this case itself stated that the advertising of this case itself would not be mistaken for the purpose of promoting national health, and that it would not be mistaken for the jute's efficacy and effect as well as objective academic books stating the required ju's efficacy and effect in its advertising method, and it is not harmful food in itself. It is hard to view that the plaintiff company's 16th of the judgment below's 98th of the former Food Sanitation Act's 98th of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act's 98th of the Food Sanitation Act's 9th of the above administrative disposition. It is hard to say that it is unlawful for the plaintiff company's 198th of the above administrative decision.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)