업무정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was employed on April 2017 (E) while operating the general restaurant “C” in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and the same year.
6.2. Police Officers’ employment was controlled by juvenile.
B. On December 12, 2017, the Defendant issued a three-month disposition of business suspension (from December 27, 2017 to March 26, 2018) against the Plaintiff as “an act of employing a juvenile to a business establishment banned from employing juveniles.” On March 5, 2018, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal and filed a ruling on March 12, 2018 that “a disposition of business suspension of a general restaurant business suspension against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2017 shall be changed to two-month disposition,” and the Defendant again issued a two-month disposition against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff employed D at the time of employment with 17 years of age and 13 months of age under the Food Sanitation Act, which was 17 years of age and is the 13 months of employment at the request of the mother F, and that it is the only means of living for the Plaintiff’s family members, and that the instant disposition is a means of livelihood support, which may cause a substantial trouble to the livelihood of the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful since it was an deviation or abuse of discretionary power.
B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.
In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it shall be inside the administrative agency.