beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) with respect to the assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant newly raised or specially emphasized in this court; and (b) with respect to the instant disposition, the judgment is added as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (c) with respect to the addition of the attached statutes related to the instant disposition, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the “related statutes” as stated in the attached statutes, thereby citing
2. The portion added by this court
A. 1) As a result of the commencement of a disciplinary measure prescribed by the Defendant’s assertion in this case from February 18, 2019, where the suspension of the Plaintiff’s business against the instant disposition was decided as a result of the commencement of the suspension of business from February 18, 2019, the suspension of business for facilities benefits was completed on April 30, 2019, and even if the instant disposition was revoked, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of the instant disposition, and as such, no longer has a legal interest in seeking cancellation of the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. 2) Although the lapse of the period of sanctions and the period of sanctions for benefit of the lawsuit were extinguished due to the lapse of the period of sanctions prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Ministerial Ordinance (hereinafter “prior disposition”), the instant disciplinary administrative disposition (hereinafter “advance disposition”) in the form of the Enforcement Rule of the Ministerial Ordinance is prescribed as a ground for aggravation or premise that it would be subject to the future punitive disposition (hereinafter “advance disposition”).
Since the need for the protection of rights to remove such disadvantage through the revocation suit is sufficiently recognized, there is a legal interest to seek the revocation of the preceding disposition.