(a) Whether the regulations under attached Table 15 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act are in force;

(b) Where it is possible to revoke an administrative disposition on beneficial interests;

(c) The validity of the administrative disposition, if it does not comply with the criteria of the administrative disposition set forth in Annex A(a) above and exceeds the criteria only for a specific person;

(d) The case holding that the disposition of business suspension on February 15 constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, even if the business was conducted without permission for more than one month prior to business permission and the violation of business hours was conducted for more than two hours, according to the above administrative disposition criteria, even though it constitutes a ground for business suspension for one month;

A. 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 same Act as attached Table 15, this form is referred to in Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but the nature of the administrative disposition is merely a provision of the internal administrative affairs rules of administrative agencies, and 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 authority and authority against the administrative agencies and employees, and it cannot be said that the discretion guaranteed pursuant to Article 58(1) of the same Act is binding, nor is it difficult to externally

B. Where an administrative agency revokes or suspends a beneficial administrative disposition, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. is an infringement of the right of vested people. Thus, even if grounds such as revocation exist, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage that the other party receives, and where the disadvantage that the other party suffers is greater than the need for public interest due to such disposition, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. is deemed unlawful.

C. Although the administrative disposition criteria in attached Table 15 pursuant to Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are merely a provision of the administrative agency's internal business handling rules, an administrative agency should take an administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition standards, unless there are special circumstances that have a significant impact on the supply and demand policies of food, etc. and the national health. Therefore, there is sufficient room to deem that the administrative agency exceeded the discretionary power in cases where the administrative agency made an excessive disposition in excess of the above disposition standards only for a particular individual without complying with the above disposition standards.

D. The case holding that the disposition of business suspension on February 15 constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, even if the business was conducted without permission for more than one month prior to business permission and the violation of business hours was conducted for more than two hours, according to the above administrative disposition criteria.

(d)Article 58(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Annex 15(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 53(d) of the same Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general] and Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1656). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu773 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,764) 89Nu6730 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong1990,547) 92Nu18726 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong193,1902), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu3943 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Dong) 2.

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu8165 delivered on January 21, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff had been engaged in the above-mentioned business for more than 02:10 hours from February 11, 1992, and violated Article 21 and Article 31 of the Food Sanitation Act by installing three smuggling, and the defendant ordered the plaintiff to suspend the above public restaurant business from April 1 of the same year to June 19 of the same year, as well as from April 5 of the same year to June 19 of the same year, the court below held the above 4: The plaintiff violated the rules of evidence by opening the above 10-day public restaurant business from the defendant on December 24 to 5 of 191, 191, and the above 10-day public notice of the fact that the above 4-day public restaurant business had been placed in a more than 0-day open door to the above 10-day public notice of the fact that the plaintiff violated the rules of evidence, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence by opening the above 1-day public restaurant and the above 2-day.

Even if Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides the criteria for administrative disposition under 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 a provision of the internal administrative affairs working rules of administrative agencies. The Minister of Health and Welfare has the nature of administrative order issued by the Minister of Health and Welfare to set 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 it is not externally difficult to bind citizens or courts, so the legality of disposition under Article 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act should not be determined depending on whether it conforms to the above regulations and its purport (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780, May 14, 1991). The judgment below is justifiable and it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

2. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2

(A) The court below held that the disposition of this case ordering the suspension of business between February 15, 200 to the effect that the plaintiff's business cannot be deemed an entertainment business cannot be deemed an entertainment business merely based on the reason for the disposition of this case was unlawful, but it did not violate the above provisions and purport of the Food Sanitation Act, and it did not constitute an unlawful act of deviating from the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power, since it did not violate the principle of profit and bridge, since it did not violate the business hours as publicly notified by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, nor did it operate the food sales business in public interest to improve the quality of food sales business and promote national health, and although it did not constitute the reason for the disposition of this case, the plaintiff operated the above business without permission for more than one month before the business license of the above business, and the violation of the business hours by the plaintiff exceeded two hours.

(B) If an administrative agency revokes or suspends a so-called "beneficial administrative disposition", it infringes on the people's vested vested rights. Thus, even if there are grounds such as revocation, the exercise of the right to cancel shall be decided by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage that the other party receives, only when there is a need for important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when there is a need to protect the interests of a third party. If the disadvantage that the other party would suffer is greater than the necessity of public interest, it is beyond the limit of discretionary power and it does not constitute an unlawful act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4973 delivered on Nov. 8, 191).

Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides for the administrative disposition standards within the administrative agency. However, unless there are special reasons that seriously affect the supply and demand policies of food, etc. and the national health, administrative agencies should take administrative dispositions against violations in accordance with the above disposition standards. Thus, there is sufficient grounds to deem that administrative agencies have exceeded the limits of discretionary power in cases where the above disposition standards only a specific individual have not complied with such disposition standards. According to the records, the defendant's act of entertainment business by using Lao facilities in violation of the above administrative disposition standards under attached Table 15 of Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule is difficult to be considered as having violated the above order of suspension of business for the first time and second time since it is difficult for the plaintiff to take the above disposition of suspension of business for the first time and second time since it is difficult for the plaintiff to take the above disposition of suspension of business for the first time beyond the limits of business for the first time, and since it is difficult for the plaintiff to take the above disposition of suspension of business for the second time and second day of February of the above disposition of suspension of business.

(C) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case did not err by exceeding the bounds of discretion is due to the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to the scope of discretion, and there is reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)