Litigation Performers Kim Young-ok

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

A. The Plaintiff completed a report on the general restaurant business to the Defendant, and operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “00 mar 00 points in the front city in the front city.”

B. On August 25, 2012, the New 00 serving as an employee in the instant restaurant was offered and sold to 6 persons, including Song 00 (year 17), a cleaning year, and was discovered, and was subject to a disposition of suspending prosecution for the above violation of the Juvenile Protection Act at the Jeonju District Prosecutors’ Office on September 24, 2012. The result of the said disposition was notified to the Defendant on October 18, 2012.

C. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the aforementioned new 00 alcohol supply, and notified the Plaintiff that he/she would be subject to an administrative disposition for the suspension of business operations for two months. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an opinion to request the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business operations on October 24, 2012. On October 24, 2012, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 18,00,00 (398,288,664 won per year of sales in 2011, KRW 60,000 per day, imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 60,000 per day on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 27, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (if there are branches number, including provisional lot number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Between the Plaintiff’s portraits, the Plaintiff provided and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles. At the time, it was difficult for juveniles at the time to doubt them as minors because they had very matureed in half-class forests. The Plaintiff’s annual sales in the year 201 according to the criteria for calculating penalty surcharges imposed in lieu of the disposition of business suspension, etc. under Article 53 and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

398, 288, 664 won was the instant disposition. Of these amounts, the amount equivalent thereto was paid as rent, employee’s salary, taxes, public charges, and tax charges, material costs, etc. and the actual profit was only KRW 26,288,00, and the standards for imposing penalty surcharges are ambiguous and there is no ground for imposing penalty surcharges, and even though they are abstract, the Defendant issued the instant disposition in accordance with the said standards for imposing penalty surcharges. In light of the above, the instant disposition was an unlawful act of deviating from and abusing the Plaintiff’s right of re-determination, as it is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Determination

The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages that an individual may suffer from the disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of violation, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are determined in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency's internal business rules, and it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above criteria for disposition but also with the above criteria for disposition. Thus, it cannot be said that the pertinent disposition is legitimate merely because the above criteria for disposition conforms to the Constitution or law, or that the punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria for disposition is not in line with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and unless there are reasonable grounds to deem it unreasonable, it should not be determined that such disposition has exceeded or abused discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 2007.

With respect to this case, the following circumstances revealing the overall purport of oral argument by integrating the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff and the employees employed by the Plaintiff are responsible for performing their duty of care, such as confirming age not to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles; (ii) the Plaintiff, an employee of the instant restaurant, provides alcoholic beverages to juveniles, 00, etc. without undergoing procedures for verifying the status card by means of transmission 00; (iii) the need for public interest to protect juveniles’ health by preventing juveniles from approaching harmful substances, such as alcoholic beverages, etc.; and (iv) there is a need to strictly apply the provisions of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 1690, Mar. 23, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 1854, Jul. 3, 2013; 2005).

According to subparagraph 11 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2501, Mar. 24, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 20144, Feb. 1, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2015, Feb. 29, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 29, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Feb. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20110, Feb. 24, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20220, Feb. 19, 201).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Cha Sung-sung

(1) The former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013)

Article 44 (Matters to be Observed by Business Operators)

(2) Food service business operators shall be referred to in Article 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act (hereafter referred to as "juvenile" in this paragraph).

shall not engage in any of the following conduct with respect to any person:

1. Having juveniles provide entertainment services by employing them as entertainment workers;

2. Visits to establishments banned from having access to and employment of juveniles under subparagraph 5 (a) (iii) of Article 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act.

Act of admitting or Employing them

3. Employing juveniles in business establishments banned from employing juveniles under subparagraph 5 (b) (iii) of Article 2 of the Juvenile Protection Act;

Action

4. Providing alcoholic beverages ( alcoholic beverages) to juveniles.

Article 75 (Revocation, etc. of Permission)

(1) The Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall:

(2) If a person is found to have a business license or registration, such business license or registration shall be

(b) suspend all or part of the business or place of business for a fixed period of up to six months;

An order for closure (limited to business reported pursuant to Article 37 (4); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) may be issued.

(c)

13. Where he/she violates Article 44(1), (2), or (4).

Article 82 (Imposition of Penalty Surcharges in lieu of Suspension of Business, etc.)

(1) The Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, Mayors/Do Governors, or heads of Sis/Guns/Gus shall each subparagraph of Article 75 (1).

Where a person falls under any subparagraph of Article 76 (1) or under any subparagraph of Article 76 (1), such case shall

section 20 million won or less in lieu of suspension of business, suspension of manufacture of items, or suspension of manufacture of items category;

A bounty may be imposed: Provided, That in cases falling under Article 75 (1) in violation of Article 6 and Article 4

Articles 5, 7, 10, 12-2, 13, 37, and 42 through 44

Matters falling under Article 75 (1) or 76 (1) in contravention of its purpose and health care in violation of any provision of

Cases prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Information and Communication shall be excluded.

(2) The amount of penalty surcharges depending on the type, degree, etc. of a violation subject to penalty surcharges under paragraph (1).

Other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

effect of the former Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24454, Mar. 23, 2013)

Article 53 (Standards for Calculating Penalty Surcharges Imposed in lieu of Suspension of Business, etc.)

In consideration of B, it shall be calculated by applying the criteria of Table 1 according to criteria for the suspension of business prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the suspension of manufacture of items.

[Attachment 1]

Standards for calculating penalty surcharges imposed in lieu of the disposition of business suspension, etc. (related to Article 53)

1. General standards:

(a) The business suspension period shall be 30 days;

(c) The amount of money used as the basis for imposing penalty surcharges in lieu of the suspension of business operations shall be preceding the year in which the date of disposition falls

The basis of the total sales for one year of the Do shall be the Do: Provided, That one year due to the suspension, suspension, etc. of a new business.

In cases where it is impossible to calculate the gross sales of the Fund, the standards for the quarterly, monthly, or daily sales.

shall be calculated by converting the annual total sales into the annual total sales.

2. Standards for penalty surcharges;

Businesses other than food and food additives manufacturing and processing business;

A person shall be appointed.

Enforcement Regulations of Food Sanitation Act

Article 89 (Criteria for Administrative Disposition)

The standards applicable to administrative dispositions under Articles 71, 72, 74 through 76, and 80 of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 23.

[Attachment 23]

Standards for calculating penalty surcharges imposed in lieu of the disposition of business suspension, etc. (related to Article 89)

1. General standards:

15. In any of the following cases, the criteria for administrative disposition, business suspension, or goods:

In the case of a suspension of manufacture of a product category or a product category, a business permit shall not exceed 1/2 of the period of the suspension;

Where a business is revoked or closed, the body of such revocation or closure within the scope of at least three months, respectively.

such portion may be reduced.

(f) Disposition of suspension of indictment from the prosecutor or sentence from the court on the relevant violation;

When a suspended judgment has been rendered, there is no intentional violation or human body for the public health.

Where it is deemed that there is no possibility to harm health;

Ⅱ Individual Standards

3. Food service business;

Food service business referred to in Article 21 (8) of the Decree.

A person shall be appointed.