(a) Whether any legal interest exists to seek the revocation of an administrative disposition, where the period of validity specified in the administrative disposition expires;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition of popular restaurant business suspension for which the period has already elapsed since Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act was imposed aggravated disposition according to the frequency of violation of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, and there was an error of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interests

(a) Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of such administrative disposition shall be invalidated upon the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining shape after the expiration of such period.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition of popular restaurant business suspension for which the period of business suspension has already expired even after the expiration of the period of suspension was entered the main text of the case which was reversed because Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which was merely an administrative order, became an aggravated disposition in accordance with the frequency of suspension, and there is an error of law as to

(b)Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4833 delivered on Nov. 14, 1989 (Gong1990,61) 89Nu1032 delivered on Jan. 12, 1990 (Gong1990,471) 91Nu179 delivered on Apr. 26, 1991 (Gong1991,1526) 2. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong191,1656)

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu970 delivered on January 23, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The proceedings shall be dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine ex officio.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remaining effect of the disposition after the expiration of that period (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4833, Nov. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1032, Nov. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu179, Apr. 26, 1991).

According to the records, the administrative disposition of this case is about the suspension of public restaurant business for the plaintiff from May 16, 191 to July 14 of the same year, and it is clear that the above period has lapsed at the time of closing of argument in the court below ( December 26, 1991) without any material to deem that the validity or execution of the above administrative disposition was suspended, and there is no particular circumstance that any legal interest has been infringed due to the remaining external form of the above disposition.

Therefore, even though the lawsuit of this case is illegal because it has no interest in it, and thus has been dismissed, the court below committed an aggravated disposition following the frequency of violation under Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780 delivered on May 14, 1991), which is merely an administrative order, and therefore, the court below committed an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit in the administrative litigation, even after the period of suspension of business expires.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit is dismissed as sufficient to judge the party members. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)