If the effective period of the administrative disposition expires, whether there is a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, and whether there is a legal interest in the above "A", because Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides an aggravated disposition according to the frequency of violation.

(a) Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated upon the expiration of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remainder of the period.

B. Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which is merely an administrative order, provides an aggravated measure pursuant to the frequency of violations, and only this does not necessarily mean that there is any legal interest in seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, the effective period of which has elapsed.

(b)Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3119 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2440) (Gong1992, 2419) 92Nu3625 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2419). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4833 delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong190, 61) 89Nu1032 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong190, 471) 91Nu179 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong191, 526)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu17923 delivered on January 14, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon by the remaining effect of the disposition after the expiration of the said period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1032, Jan. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3119, Oct. 23, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3625, Jul. 10, 1992; etc.); and Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which is only an administrative order, provides an aggravated disposition in accordance with the frequency of violation under Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the disposition of this case is suspended from the business of this case from July 20, 1992 to August 19, 19 of the same year, and there is no evidence to deem that its validity or execution has been suspended, and it is obvious that the above suspension period has lapsed as of the closing date of pleadings in the court below, and there is no particular circumstance that any legal interest has been infringed due to the remaining effect of the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal interest like the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of the precedents of party members.

The precedent cited by the theory is that the Certified Architects Act stipulates the order of suspension of business as the standard requirement for aggravated disposition of cancellation of registration heavier than that of the order of suspension of business, and the case is different from this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)