과징금부과처분취소
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 reported the business of food service in the name of "C" in the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, Jeonjin-gu, and operated the general food service, and the actual operator is D, the Plaintiff’s son.
B. At around December 21, 2015, E, an employee of the above restaurant, sold liquors to four juveniles at the above restaurant around December 21, 2015
(hereinafter “instant violation”). On May 13, 2016, E was sentenced to the suspension of sentence due to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, which committed the instant violation, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
Jeonju District Court Decision 2016Ma220 decided May 13, 2016
On the other hand, on February 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered two-month business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation under Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act.
On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal for changing the disposition of the business suspension in two months to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission for the imposition of a penalty surcharge.
On August 31, 2016, the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that the two-month suspension of business was changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the 30-day suspension of business.
E. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 26,400,000 in lieu of 30 days of business suspension on the Plaintiff following the above judgment.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 17, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Plaintiff did not think that there was a juvenile during his/her daily activity, and without verifying his/her identification card; (b) sold the lawsuit in response to the order of the said customer; (c) there was a circumstance to consider the circumstances; (d) the Plaintiff rendered a judgment suspending the sentence against E; and (e) issued a disposition to inform D that there was no suspicion.