(a) Whether there is no legal interest in an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a disposition of business suspension when a business license is revoked after a disposition of business suspension;

B. Whether an administrative disposition is an unlawful disposition immediately because it violated Article 53 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which set the criteria for disposition under Article 58(1) of the same Act

A. Even if a disposition of revocation of a business license remains the means of litigation, so long as there is a benefit to seek the revocation of the disposition of suspension of business previously taken place by administrative litigation. Thus, if an administrative litigation is filed against the disposition of revocation of the business license, it cannot be said that a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of suspension of business has no benefit of lawsuit, solely on the ground that the business license was revoked,

B. Even if Article 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 910 of July 3, 1993), the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 910 of July 3, 1993) are set under [Attachment Table 15], this is merely a form-farcing Ordinance, and its nature has the nature of administrative order, and it is externally difficult to bind citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of disposition under Article 58(1) of the same Act should not be determined depending on whether it conforms to the Enforcement Rule of the same

(a) Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 58(1) of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 53 [Attachment Table 15] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu338 delivered on March 12, 1985 (Gong1985,552). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1656) 93Nu21958 delivered on March 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1204) 94Nu4370 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 305)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu4069 delivered on May 4, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if a business license was canceled, there is a benefit to seek the cancellation of the business license even if the means of litigation remains. Thus, if the plaintiff files an administrative litigation against the business license cancellation disposition, it cannot be said that the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the business license is illegal because there is no benefit of lawsuit, just because the business license was canceled.

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 in attached Table 15 of the Enforcement Rule, it is a form only Ministerial Ordinance. The nature of the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 58 of the Food Sanitation Act is that it sets the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it has the nature of administrative order, and it is not an external power to bind citizens or courts, so the legality of disposition under Article 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act is not determined depending on whether it conforms to the above rules, but on whether it conforms to the above provisions and purport of the above law (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4370 delivered on October 14, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21958 delivered on March 8, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9780 delivered on May 14, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below revoked the disposition of this case's suspension of business on the grounds as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. The court below's fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to wrongful facts or discretionary power which are found to be erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc., and there is no ground for appeal.

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)