beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2021.02.26 2020구단11317

영업정지처분취소

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff reported the business of beauty art business (Stop) to the Defendant, and operated a four-day shop (hereinafter “instant store”) in the trade name of “C” on the Daegu Jung-gu B and 2nd floor.

B. On July 1, 2020, a public official affiliated with the defendant visited the store of this case to conduct similar medical acts, such as eyebrow, etc. at the store of this case (hereinafter “instant violation”). On July 9, 2020, the defendant issued a disposition ordering the plaintiff to suspend business operations for two months pursuant to Articles 4, 11, and 11-2 of the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, who did not present the grounds for the disposition, sent a prior notice of the disposition of the instant case to the Defendant, without stating at all the major facts, such as the subject, date, time, and counterpart of the violation, by stating only “a similar medical act, such as eyebrow,” as the grounds for the disposition. This constitutes an unlawful prior notice.

Therefore, there is a lack of procedural defect in the disposition of this case.

2) Article 21(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that a prior notice procedure shall be given to the parties by 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The Defendant sent a prior notice to the Plaintiff by 8 days prior to the date of the hearing. This is the failure to comply with the arrival period of the hearing as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act, and the subsequent notice procedure is unlawful, and the instant disposition is also unlawful.

3) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is that the Plaintiff only stored materials to conduct the stampering business, such as the eyebrow, in the place of business, and did not actually perform the procedure.