과징금부과처분취소
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 (hereinafter “Plaintiff restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.
Plaintiff
At around 00:00 on November 13, 2014, D, a restaurant store, sold 6 soldiers a week to 8 juveniles in the Plaintiff restaurant.
Accordingly, on November 26, 2015, the Defendant imposed penalty surcharge of KRW 30 million on the Plaintiff in lieu of a business suspension period of one month.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1, 2, and 4 evidence, Eul’s 1-7 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Of the 8 plaintiffs' assertion, the identification card was confirmed with respect to 4 of the above 8, and the 4 of the above 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 4 of the 5 of the 5 of the 5 of the 5 of the 5 of the 5 of the 5 of the 198 of the 198 of the 198 of the 198 of the 198
B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as a circumstance that the violator does not have knowledge of his/her duty, or a circumstance where the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to be anticipated, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du15139, Apr. 9, 2015; 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012). Sanctions disposition deviates from the scope of discretion under social norms.