1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On October 13, 2017, the Defendant’s business suspension against the Plaintiff is substituted by one month.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff operated a general restaurant in the name of “C” in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and was exposed to the Nowon Police Station on September 21, 2017 by suspicion that the Plaintiff offered alcoholic beverages to juveniles D (n, 18 years old) in the above C around September 21, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On October 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,90,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff in lieu of the business suspension for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “an act of providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles in violation of Article 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim on December 11, 2017 was made.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's assertion was confirmed, and the plaintiff provided 3 persons and alcoholic beverages by the law of law, which are adults on the day of this case, and there was no additional food or alcohol, and there was no additional food or alcohol. The plaintiff did not have any awareness as to the fact that the juvenile D, which was the most bad time zone of the plaintiff, last 18 years old, had already been provided to the plaintiff that he would provide alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case, which was based only on the result that the juvenile dranks, was illegal because there is no ground for the disposition.

The plaintiff puts a notice at the entrance of a usual place that "not allowing minors to enter and leave," and has made best efforts not to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles, such as conducting identification cards to customers who entered a store, and the plaintiff operated a restaurant for about 20 years. This is also applicable to the plaintiff's operation of the restaurant.