영업허가취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff operated “Cju” in Daegu Northern-gu B, and was subject to a disposition of business suspension on July 3, 2015 by the Defendant around April 5, 2015.
B. Following the Plaintiff’s filing of an administrative appeal, the period of suspension of business was reduced to 15 days, and the period of suspension of business was from September 9, 2015 to September 23, 2015.
C. On November 9, 2015, the Defendant was notified by the head of the Daegu Northern Police Station of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act that “the Plaintiff, on September 22, 2015, engaged in the act of arranging entertainment visitors at the above danran bar around September 22, 2015 during the suspension period of business (hereinafter “instant violation”).
Accordingly, on November 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition revoking the business license in accordance with the administrative disposition criteria under Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff, who is the business title of the instant dan, was engaged in the business during the business suspension period.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion D had D operate the above dan d's business, and the disposition of this case is unfair in light of the fact that D's business suspension period was terminated and it was operated.
B. (1) Sanction against a violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, not a real offender, but a person prescribed as a person in charge under the law is imposed, and barring any special circumstance, it may be imposed neither intentionally nor by negligence on the violator, barring any special circumstance.
(2) According to each of the above evidence and evidence No. 4 as to the instant case’s health room, and the purport of the entire pleadings, D who actually runs the dan dan d’s dan d’s dan d’s d’ s d’ s d’ d’ s d’ s d’s d’s d’s d’