(a) Whether the disposition, such as business suspension, etc., is appropriate unless the procedure for the hearing under the Food Sanitation Act is fully or has undergone (negative)

(b) Whether an order to improve a facility is issued on the ground that the area of guest seat in a non-exclusive entertainment restaurant business is not less than the minimum area of facility standards under the Food Sanitation Act (negative);

A. Article 64 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the procedural requirements are not complied with even if the procedures are not met or they have gone through the hearing, the disposition cannot avoid revocation due to its illegality, even though it is recognized as the grounds for business suspension, etc. of domestic affairs.

B. The facility standards stipulated in Article 21 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 20 attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act set the minimum facility standards that must be met in the dancing entertainment restaurant business. Thus, even if the guest seat area of a place of business has been expanded without permission more than the minimum size of the above facility standards, the permission for business shall not be revoked or suspended on the ground of the change in the business permission without permission, separate from the cancellation or suspension of business permission.

(a) Articles 58 and 64 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 37 (1) (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 21 and 57 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 20 attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu14 delivered on June 14, 1983 (Gong1983,100) 90Nu4129 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991,103) b. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu685 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984,730)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu4524 delivered on December 11, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant litigant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the provisions of Article 64 of the Food Sanitation Act, when the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Mayor/Do governor intends to make a disposition under the provisions of Article 58, 59 or 63, he shall give the other party to the disposition or his representative an opportunity to state his opinion in advance as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the provisions of Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when he intends to request the attendance of the business operator or his representative in order to hold a hearing under the provisions of Article 64 of the same Act, he shall send a written hearing without delay to the business operator or his representative, but the hearing shall be delivered at least seven days prior to the date of the hearing (ten days prior to the date of attendance in the case of the Minister of Health and Welfare). The purpose of the hearing system is to provide the business operator with an opportunity to present materials favorable to the business operator due to the business suspension in this case and the dispositions under the provisions of Article 58 of the same Act, etc., thereby ensuring the propriety of the disposition and preventing the infringement of rights of the business operator.

According to the facts duly established by the court below in this case, the defendant issued a written hearing to the plaintiffs on April 11, 198, even if the date of the hearing was determined as April 11, 198 when the defendant issued a written hearing to the plaintiffs on the 6th of that month. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below did not comply with the procedural requirements for the period of arrival of the hearing and did not go through legitimate procedures for the hearing. Thus, the court below's decision that the disposition of this case was unlawful and ordered cancellation of the disposition of this case was

2. An order to repair facilities under Article 57 of the Food Sanitation Act may be issued when business facilities fail to meet the facility standards under Article 21 of the same Act, and the facility standards under Article 21 of the same Act and Article 20 attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act set the minimum facility standards that must be met in the dancing entertainment restaurant business. Thus, even if the plaintiff without permission expansion of the guest seat area of the business place without permission above the minimum facility size of the above facility standards, it shall not be subject to an order to repair facilities under Article 57 of the same Act, separate from revocation or suspension of business permission for the reason that business permission changes without permission.

The court below's decision to the above purport and ordered the cancellation of the facility repair order of this case is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)