영업소폐쇄처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the name of “C point” on the 2nd floor of the building in e.g., chemical B in e.g., chemical B.
B. The Plaintiff’s son-friendly D is in charge of the above business establishment’s substantial business, and around 23:30 on July 20, 2016, the juvenile E (the age of 16) who entered the above business establishment did not verify the age of 11 illness, beer, and 2,000 C sales.
Accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months (from October 31, 2016 to December 29, 2016) based on Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act against the Plaintiff, following legitimate prior procedures.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the above administrative appeal on December 16, 2016 as a result of the review after having rendered a decision to suspend execution on the above disposition.
On January 9, 2017, the Defendant changed the period of business suspension to “from February 1, 2017 to April 1, 2017” and notified the Plaintiff.
On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the disposition of suspension of business as the court 2017Gudan19, and applied for suspension of business as the court 2017Gudan1 on the same day.
On January 13, 2017, this Court dismissed the application for suspension of execution, and the decision of dismissal became final and conclusive on January 27, 2017.
Applicant Nevertheless, the Plaintiff continued to conduct business on March 24, 2017, and the Defendant was found to have been exposed to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2017 after due process, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition of closing the place of business in accordance with Article 75(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and attached Table 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2017.
(1) 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, etc.
2. (1) On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff’s mother was cooking in the main room; and (b) the Plaintiff was making ice ice ice on the main room; and (c) the Plaintiff was making ice ice.