(a) Cases subject to determination in an application for suspension of the validity of administrative disposition or suspension of execution;

(b) The meaning of "damage difficult to recover" as provided in Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. In a case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition, suspension of execution, etc., whether or not the administrative disposition itself is legitimate, and whether or not there is a requirement under the Administrative Litigation Act as to whether or not the administrative disposition itself is effective or suspended, etc.

B. In Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the term “irreparable damage” refers to the damage that cannot be compensated in money, unless there are special circumstances. This refers to not only where monetary compensation is impossible, but also to the tangible and intangible damage where the party against whom an administrative disposition was taken cannot withstanding for reference or where it is considerably difficult to check for reference due to money compensation.

Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(a) Supreme Court Order 86Du5 Dated August 11, 1986; Supreme Court Order 86Du9 Dated September 28, 1983; Supreme Court Order 82Du2 Dated March 21, 1986 Dated March 21, 1986>

The chief of Yongsan Fire Station

Other Party

Seoul High Court Order 86Nu126 dated August 11, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the other party (the other party; hereinafter the other party) has sold oil such as gasoline, etc. in the trade name of the oil station in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City with permission for petroleum selling business from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and permission for the facilities for storing and handling hazardous substances from the re-appellant (the re-appellant). On June 7, 1986, a similar gasoline joint inspection team collected three kinds of samples from the above gas station and decided that two samples were similar gasoline as a result of the examination, the re-appellant revoked the permission for the facilities for storing and handling hazardous substances in the above case of July 25 of the same year, and the other party filed an application for the suspension of the above disposition with the Seoul High Court for the suspension of the execution of the above disposition on August 11 of the same year, and the court can find the fact that the above disposition has been suspended until the court became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

On the other hand, in case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the administrative disposition itself, and the existence or absence of the requirements of the Administrative Litigation Act as to whether such administrative disposition will suspend its validity or execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 86Du9, Aug. 11, 1986; Order 86Du5, Mar. 21, 1986; etc.). Thus, the re-appellant cannot criticize the suspension of execution of the court below on the ground that the disposition of this case is legitimate. Meanwhile, Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "if it is deemed that there is an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damages due to the disposition, etc. or the execution or the continuation of the procedure, it is difficult for the court to determine that it is difficult for the other party to request suspension of the above administrative disposition to take account of the nature of the disposition or its validity, or it is difficult for the other party to take account of the nature of the above disposition or its validity of the disposition."

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)