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 has operated a general restaurant in the name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B and “C” on the first floor (hereinafter “instant business”).
B. Around 00:00 on August 7, 2018, the Plaintiff’s employee D (Korean nationality: Uzbekistan; hereinafter referred to as “foreign employee”) provided the instant juvenile E and two other juveniles (hereinafter referred to as “juveniles of this case”) with three illness, beer, etc. and sold. On October 23, 2018, he/she was subject to suspension of indictment from the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Acting for Public Prosecutor’s Office.
C. On February 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on February 1, 2019, the Nonparty, an employee of the Plaintiff, was on the instant business establishment.
The instant juveniles provided alcoholic beverages to the instant juveniles as described in the subsection.
(hereinafter “instant violation”) under Articles 44(2)4 and 75 of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15943, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter “instant disposition”), one month of business suspension (from February 25, 2019 to March 26, 2019) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission to the effect that the instant disposition is revoked, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the claim on April 22, 2019.
E. On July 26, 2019, the Defendant changed the period of suspension of business to “from August 15, 2019 to September 13, 2019” and notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition again.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.
1) At the instant business establishment, three juveniles (dual female) and three adult (dual male) have been entered. At the time, the Plaintiff did not have the instant business establishment, and the Nonparty was above.