Whether an employee of a food service business operator fails to comply with the code of practice that helps his/her employee to lele in a guest or inn constitutes a case where he/she fails to comply with such code of practice.

If a food service business operator had his/her employees working for a main office twice make a drinking to be invested in and leap with his/her customers and other guests at the main office, he/she may not comply with the matters to be observed under Article 42 [Attachment Table 13] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act as a food service business operator who does not comply with the matters to be observed under Article 42 [Attachment Table 13] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act.

Articles 31 and 58 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 42 [Attachment 13] 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Plaintiff

Chang Gun

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu6123 delivered on May 26, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On December 14, 1989, the court below acknowledged that, while the plaintiff was running an entertainment drinking business in the Si/Eup and Myeon with a food entertainment business permission from the defendant on December 14, 1989, Non-party 2, an employee of the above main office, in collusion with the non-party 1, a marina, from June 13, 1994 to the 26th day of the same month, caused Non-party 2, who is an employee of the above main office, to drink and drink in the above main office, and arrange to do so, but such referral act alone does not constitute one of the food service business operators' obligations under Article 42 (Attachment Table 13) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, or that the act of disturbing the public morals of employees, such as delivery and sale, etc., was not a case where the plaintiff violated the food service business operator's obligation, and thus revoked the disposition of business suspension.

(2) Article 31 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that food service business operators and business operators as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall observe the matters prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in order to manage the business in a sanitary manner, maintain the order, and promote national health and sanitation. Article 58 of the same Act provides that business permission may be fully or partially cancelled, or the business may be suspended or the business may be ordered to be closed for a fixed period of not more than 6 months, and Article 42 [Attachment 13] 7 of the Enforcement Rule delegated by Article 31 of the same Act provides that "where food service business operators shall observe the matters to be observed, the food service business operators shall prevent gambling, other speculative acts, or rumors, and shall not encourage or implied such acts among business activities such as delivery and sale, and if the plaintiff, who is an employee of the food service business operators, has been engaged in drinking drinking places over several times, as determined by the court below, the plaintiff's act of drinking and drinking, which does not constitute an act of drinking or drinking food service business operators, shall not constitute an act of drinking food service business operators.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)