(a) Whether a disposition of business suspension is appropriate for failing to strictly observe the procedures for the hearing, such as a written hearing under the Food Sanitation Act (negative);

(b) The case holding that the disposition of suspension of business issued by an administrative agency without complying with the 7 days under Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act and without complying with the procedure of the hearing and the disposition of suspension of business issued through the procedure of the hearing is unlawful;

A. In light of the purport of the hearing system under Article 64 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the administrative agency intends to take a disposition of business suspension, the administrative agency must undergo prior hearing procedures, as well as must ensure the business operator the opportunity to state and defend himself/herself by strictly complying with the arrival period of the hearing, and even if the grounds under Article 58 of the same Decree clearly exist, the disposition of business suspension without complying with the above hearing procedure is unlawful.

B. The case holding that in the case where an administrative agency's disposition of suspension of business did not comply with seven days, which is the closing date of the hearing under Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and sent a written hearing within five days prior to the date of the hearing, the above procedure of the hearing is unlawful, and the above disposition of suspension of business, which was issued through the illegal hearing procedure,

Articles 58 and 64 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 14 others (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law conciliation system

Attorney Lee Jong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Administrator of Jongno-gu Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1225 delivered on October 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the purpose of the hearing system under Article 64 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the administrative agency intends to take the same disposition of suspension of business as this case, the court below must undergo the hearing procedure in advance, as well as must guarantee business operators the opportunity to state their opinion and defend themselves strictly, and even if there are clear grounds under Article 58 of the same Decree, the disposition of suspension of business without complying with the above hearing procedure is not illegal (Article 90Nu4129 delivered on Nov. 9, 190). According to the evidence of this case, the defendant can be recognized that he sent a written hearing as of May 28, 191 to the plaintiff on May 22, 191, which is five days before the date of the hearing, and therefore, the procedure of the hearing in this case's disposition shall be justified by comparing the above hearing procedure with the legal reasoning of Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and it shall not be unlawful.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)