(a) Cancellation of an administrative disposition on beneficial interests and a bridge of relevant interest;

(b) Whether the attached Table 15 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act exists (negative)

(c) The case holding that the Plaintiff’s employees, who are public restaurant operators, violated the scope of discretion by taking into account the circumstances in which the disposition of the business suspension for two months was taken on the ground that he/she violated the business closure hours for thirty minutes and did not have an entertainment worker and one other related business operator, and he/she operated the business, and the circumstances in which he/she was subjected to the said disposition, a degree of violation, and the damages that the Plaintiff

A. If the revocation or suspension of a beneficial administrative disposition is an infringement on the vested rights of the people. Thus, even if there are grounds such as revocation, the exercise of the right to revoke, etc. is determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantages that the other party receives, only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. If the disadvantage that the other party would suffer is greater than the necessity of the public interest, the exercise of the right to revoke, etc. itself is unlawful.

B. Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides for the criteria for administrative disposition pursuant to Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act as attached Table 15, this form is referred to in Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but its nature is merely a mere setting of the internal administrative affairs rules of administrative agencies. Thus, it cannot be said that the Minister of Health and Welfare has the nature of an administrative order issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare to set guidelines for the exercise of its authority against the administrative agencies and employees, and it cannot be said that it is binding upon the discretion guaranteed pursuant to Article 58(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and it is not difficult to externally bind citizens

C. The Plaintiff’s employees, who are public restaurant operators, have been engaged in a business for about 20 customers, such as 24:00, which is 30 minutes of business hours under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s notification, and violated business hours by running a business against them. Among them, the Plaintiff’s employees, who were entertainment operators, received partial demands from them, and only one other entertainment workers permitted at entertainment establishments. However, the above business establishment, as a restaurant in the apartment complex near the apartment complex where approximately 2.1 billion operating facilities are located, prepared and sold around around about 15 employees, and had been engaged in entertainment business, such as entertainment workers, not employed. Meanwhile, if the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor imposed a penalty surcharge on the Defendant in lieu of the disposition of business suspension for the same violation, the immediately order for the business suspension for the first 2 months was issued, the circumstances leading up to the above disposition, and the Plaintiff’s loss suffered excessive deviation from the scope of discretion.

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act . (a) of the same Act; Article 27(b) of the same Act; Article 58(1) of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 53(15) of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu2 delivered on September 28, 1982 (Gong1982,1092) 83Nu127 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983,1285) 89Nu6433 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990,2284) B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2816 delivered on December 6, 198 (Gong1989,109) 88Nu73 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,764) 89Nu6730 delivered on January 23, 190 (Gong190,547)

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Gangnam-gu Office of General Law, Attorney Ga-Ba, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu8956 delivered on October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where it is intended to cancel or suspend so-called "beneficial administrative disposition that causes any benefit to the other party, such as permission, license, authorization, patent, etc. of an administrative agency, it would infringe the vested right of the person already granted. Thus, even if there are grounds such as cancellation, the exercise of the right to cancel, etc. shall be determined by comparing it with the disadvantage that the other party receives, only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested right or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. If the disadvantage that the other party would suffer is enormous than the necessity of the public interest due to such disposition, it shall not be exempted from the limits of discretionary power, and it itself is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu2, Sept. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu127, Jul. 12, 198; 89Nu6433, Oct. 10, 199).

Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides the criteria for administrative disposition pursuant to Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act as attached Table 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, the form is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but its nature is merely the fact that the Minister of Health and Welfare has the nature of an administrative order issued to establish guidelines for the exercise of authority and authority against the administrative agencies and employees, and it cannot be said that the discretion guaranteed by Article 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act is binding, and there is no external power to bind citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of disposition pursuant to Article 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act is not determined depending on whether it conforms to the above rules, but it is determined based on whether it conforms to the provisions and purport of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2816, Dec. 6, 198; Supreme Court Decision 8Nu7379, Apr. 11, 1989; 8Nu73906, Aug. 37, 1909).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's employees violated the business hours by 30 minutes, and that the plaintiff's employees engaged in the business with other entertainment workers permitted only at entertainment establishments, and further, the plaintiff's above business establishment is merely a restaurant near the apartment complex opened on November 1, 198 with about 2.15 billion won and mainly prepared and sold light-types. It did not employ workers such as entertainment workers. At the time of detection of this case, 24:0, which is 30 minutes of business under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's public notice, and 20 minutes of business suspension, it was hard to find that the above business suspension order had been issued to the defendant for more than 10 months since it violated the above 20-month business suspension order, and there was no violation of the law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above 10-month business suspension order and 10-month business suspension order, and there was no other violation of the law as to the above 10-month business suspension order.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)