영업정지처분취소
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 is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” in the north-gu B at the port of port.
B. On December 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, around 23:00 on February 1, 2018, sold 54,00 won in total to four juveniles, including D (n, 16 years of age), etc. at the instant restaurant, and provided juvenile alcoholic beverages.
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 12, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as the owner of the restaurant of this case, failed to contact customers at the time of control, and did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision to prevent the act of violating the Juvenile Protection Act by allowing employees E to clarify the identification card inspection. 2) The Plaintiff operated an exemplary business for about 28 years without the record of violating the Juvenile Protection Act. The instant disposition causes damage to the extent that it is difficult to resume the business due to the instant disposition, and that the employee’s livelihood is difficult in the restaurant of this case, the instant disposition should be revoked by abusing discretion and abusing discretion.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
C. The sanctions imposed on the violation of the administrative law 1 is based on the objective fact of the violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Therefore, the actual actor is necessarily an actor.