The progress of the date fixed by the period of suspension of business and the profits of lawsuits for cancellation of suspension of business.

Where a business cancellation disposition is changed to a business suspension disposition for a certain period by a source, even if the date determined for the business suspension period has elapsed, there is a benefit in the lawsuit to seek the cancellation of the existing business suspension disposition since the business suspension is customary from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the same period of business suspension

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu228 delivered on March 12, 1974 (Article 1 (263) 1177 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 78Nu72 delivered on May 23, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 78Nu72 delivered on May 23, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 11873, Supreme Court Decision 26Nu1873, Supreme Court Decision 26Nu16, Supreme Court Decision 123, Supreme Court Gazette 590No10920)

Plaintiff

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The disposition that the defendant ordered the suspension of business from May 15, 1979 to June 14, 1979 with respect to the plaintiff's general amusement restaurant "Tin" as of September 29, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

It is the same as the disposition (the defendant was subject to the initial disposition of business revocation, but the superior office of the defendant was changed to the disposition of business suspension, such as the contents of the disposition).

In light of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Food Permit), 3 (Administrative Disposition), 4 (Notice), 6-1 (Disposition of Modification of Administrative Disposition), 2 (Order of Suspension of Business), 7-1, 2 (Order of Suspension of Business) of the same evidence No. 7 (Order of Suspension of Business), and 1, 2 (Written Ruling) of the same evidence No. 1978, Sep. 29, 1978, the plaintiff operated the restaurant business under the name of the roof "one 1, Dong-dong, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with a general amusement restaurant business license granted by the defendant on Sep. 29, 1978, with a business license granted by the defendant on Sep. 29, 1978, the plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages by entering the place of business, allowed the plaintiff to perform an act without intention, and violated business hours, the disposition of revocation of the above business license issued to the plaintiff on May 15, 1979. However, the disposition of suspension of business was revoked from May 15, 195.

However, on March 2, 1979, the Plaintiff offered liquor to minors, and caused customers to commit an act without permission, and violated the business hours. The Plaintiff reported business suspension for the repair of the instant business establishment from February 5, 1979 to February 28, 200, and did not carry out the construction of facilities until March 6, 200, and the Defendant did not carry out the business under the direction of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office's Office's Office's 9 years of business suspension and 9 years of business suspension. Based on the Plaintiff's 9 years of business suspension and 9 years of business suspension and 9 years of business suspension, the Defendant did not carry out the business under the direction of the Seoul Public Prosecutor's Office's 9 years of business suspension and 9 years of business suspension (the Nonparty 2's 9 years of business suspension and 9 years of business suspension). Based on the Nonparty's 9's false statement that was drinking at the Plaintiff's 9's office's 9 years of business suspension and 9 days of business suspension, it should be found to be unlawful (the Nonparty 2's 3 years of this case.

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not operate his business from the night of March 2, 1979 to the new wall next day. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case premised on the plaintiff's business activity on the above date should be revoked by illegal and unjust disposition. Even if the date determined as the suspension period has expired, if the plaintiff loses the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case, the defendant has the interest in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the existing suspension of business since the suspension of the plaintiff's business is customary for the same period from the date the judgment became final and conclusive, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the previous suspension of business is justified, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Park Woo-young (Presiding Judge)