A. Whether an application for the validity and suspension of execution of an administrative disposition can be deemed legitimate as a ground for appeal against a decision that rejected the application for the validity and suspension of execution of an administrative disposition for lack of requirements under Article 23(2)

B. The meaning of “irreparable damages” under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(c) The case holding that the damage under Paragraph (b) does not constitute a “B” if the damage to external credibility or reputation is sustained by suffering enormous property damage to the extent of danger to the existence of the company;

A. 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., whether it is necessary to determine the validity or validity of the administrative disposition, and therefore, the decision dismissing the application for suspension of validity on the ground that it failed to meet such requirements, cannot be deemed a ground for

B. The phrase “irreparable damage” 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 the party subject to an administrative disposition cannot withstanding for reference or where the reference is considerably difficult.

C. The case holding that the circumstance that if a construction business license cancellation disposition continues to exist, the company is unable to receive new orders from the company and the liability for damages is to be borne by the company that already received orders, and that the company is unable to receive new orders from the company, and that it is likely to incur enormous property losses to the extent that the existence of the new works is threatened, and that external credibility and reputation are lost, barring any special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern that monetary damages may not be compensated due to the continuation of the disposition may not

Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Order 94Du42 dated September 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2879) 94Du35 dated October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3132)

Suwon Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 7 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Order 94Da888 dated September 28, 1994

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, and whether it is necessary to suspend the validity or execution of the administrative disposition itself, that is, the existence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, the decision dismissing the application for suspension of its validity on the ground that it failed to meet such requirements cannot be deemed a ground for dissatisfaction with the validity of the administrative disposition itself. In addition, “damage difficult to recover” as a requirement to suspend the effect or execution of an administrative disposition, etc. under Article 23(2) of the above Act, unless there are special circumstances, means not only a case where monetary compensation is impossible, but also a case where monetary compensation is a type and intangible damage where a party subject to an administrative disposition is unable to obtain a reference or where it is considerably difficult to obtain a reference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Du42, Sept. 24, 199

Therefore, the argument that the disposition of this case's construction cancellation cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal among the grounds for reappeal that the disposition of this case's construction business cancellation cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal as pointed out in the ground for reappeal. If the disposition of this case continues to exist, the re-appellant is unable to receive a new order for suspension of construction works already under construction and liability for damages therefrom. It is not likely that a new order for suspension of validity will incur a huge property loss to the extent that its existence risks, and external credibility or reputation will be lost, barring any special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern that the remaining existence of the disposition of this case will cause damage not being compensated in money to the re-appellant. Further, the circumstance that the remaining existence of the disposition of this case causes a significant burden on the national finance or national economy as set out in the ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal's ground for reappeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)