영업정지처분취소
1. The disposition of business suspension rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2014 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The Plaintiff is a general restaurant operator of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2nd floor “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) and her husband D actually operates the instant restaurant. On April 26, 2014, the employee E provided and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles without age verification, and the Defendant issued a disposition of two months of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 30, 2014 for the reason of violating the Food Sanitation Act to the Plaintiff on July 30, 2014.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The obligation to refrain from providing juvenile alcoholic beverages under the Food Sanitation Act is against food service business operators, and the Plaintiff or her husband D did not provide alcoholic beverages or let employees provide such alcoholic beverages, the instant disposition does not have any grounds for disposition.
(2) Even if the grounds for the instant disposition exist, the said disposition is an excessive sanction, and is in violation of the principle of proportionality and abuse of discretion.
B. (1) The imposition of sanctions against a violation of administrative laws and regulations on the assertion of non-existence of grounds for disposition is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, it is not a real offender, but a person who is stipulated by the law as a responsible person, in principle, unless there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the violator’s duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du5972, May 26, 2000). Therefore, a person who is licensed to engage in food entertainment business pursuant to the Food Sanitation Act is liable for administrative liability due to a violation of administrative laws and regulations by employees of a business establishment, and unless he/she was aware of such violation.
(2) The same does not apply to
Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on May 25, 1993