logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.12 2018구합5253
춤허용업소 지정 취소에 관한 행정처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a food service business in the name of “C” from April 2016 to “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On June 7, 2016, the Defendant designated the instant restaurant as a dance-free establishment pursuant to Article 5 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Operation of General ateeries (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

C. On October 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a corrective order as the first administrative disposition pursuant to Article 44, Article 71 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 89 [Attachment Table 23], Article 89 [Attachment Table 23], Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff visited the restaurant of this case and confirmed that the Plaintiff had installed a separate space for dancing in the place of business. D. The Defendant visited the restaurant of this case on February 7, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff had installed a separate space for dancing again in the place of business. The Defendant revoked the designation of the instant food service business pursuant to Article 44, Article 71 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment 23], Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 15 of the Ordinance of the instant food service business.

(hereinafter “former Disposition”) e.

On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on June 25, 2018.

F. On July 30, 2018, the Defendant revoked ex officio the previous disposition of this case and re-dispositioned the same content as the pertinent disposition.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”).

arrow