2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The Plaintiff operates a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”) in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On March 16, 2020, the Defendant rendered a two-month disposition of business suspension on the ground that “ around 01:00 on June 24, 2018, the instant restaurant provided liquor to juveniles” to the Plaintiff.

On June 8, 2020, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission changed the business suspension disposition for two months of business suspension on the ground that the restaurant in this case is deemed to have a ground for disposition, but it is necessary to reduce the disposition when considering that the restaurant in this case is small and the plaintiff's economic condition is poor. Accordingly, on July 8, 2020, the defendant issued a disposition of business suspension on the ground that the business suspension was suspended on 10th of the month to the plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] . [The entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1, 3 through 6 (including the number of branches), the grounds for the whole pleadings, and the entry of the relevant statutes are as shown in the separate sheet.

On the day of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff confirmed that he/she was adult upon presenting his/her identification card.

D It shows his juvenile identification card to the police dispatched later, and it shows it to the plaintiff by appropriating another person's adult identification card to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff did not know that D was a juvenile due to the illegal use of his identification card.

It is unreasonable to impose administrative sanctions on the plaintiff.

Judgment

Sanction against violation of administrative regulations is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, it does not require the intention or negligence of the violator. However, it does not require that a punishment may not be imposed even if there is a justifiable reason that does not lead to the failure of the violator to perform his/her duties.

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu255 Decided September 14, 1976, and Supreme Court Decision 9Nu255 Decided September 2, 2003