Kim Jong-ho (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Dong-gu

December 20, 1983

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's revocation of business permission against the plaintiff on July 19, 1983 shall be revoked, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10268, Apr. 2, 1981); Article 23(2) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 268, Apr. 2, 1981); Article 23(1) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 268, Apr. 2, 1981; Presidential Decree No. 2065, Apr. 2, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2065, Feb. 29, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 29, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 19, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 3, 2006).

However, the plaintiff's attorney argues that the defendant abused or deviates from his discretionary authority in the administrative disposition of this case, and that the above first ground is that he was an adult at the time of entering the plaintiff's place of business, and that his behaviors were not intentional or negligent, since he entered the plaintiff's place of business. Second, the plaintiff's employer invested 10 million won in the above place of business in the capital of 100,000 won and employs 10 employees. The disadvantage that the plaintiff or his employees should receive is greater than the necessity of the public interest in which the administrative disposition of this case is to be taken, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it other than the contents of the evidence No. 6, which is not believed to be a member of the plaintiff's place of business. The plaintiff's ground for appeal is that the plaintiff's previous age should be confirmed to be the age of the plaintiff's previous age at the time of such administrative disposition, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's abuse of discretionary authority could not have been easily acknowledged.

In this case, the administrative disposition of this case is lawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

January 10, 1984

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul's disease