(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구합5035

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.11.07 2018구합5035

영업정지처분취소

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 who reported the business of food service to the Defendant on March 2, 2016, and operates a mutual general restaurant in the name of “C” in Seopo-si B.

B. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff was released from the police due to the reason that the Plaintiff provided and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles on November 2, 2016, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of business on November 2, 2016. (2) On May 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 44(2) Subparag. 4 of the Food Sanitation Act with respect to the above violation, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 75 of the same Act, and subsequently, on the grounds of Articles 75 and 82 of the same Act on August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff subsequently changed the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 4 million in lieu of 20 days of the business suspension.

C. On March 4, 2017, a violation of Article 44(2)4 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 75 of the same Act were discovered again on the grounds that D, an employee of the Plaintiff, offered alcoholic beverages to juveniles around March 4, 2017. (2) The Defendant rendered a disposition of ordering the suspension of business for three months on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 44(2)4 of the Food Sanitation Act with respect to the said violation and the Plaintiff was re-exploded while taking a disposition on the violation of Article 75 of the same Act on November 2, 2016.

3) Since then, the Defendant should have taken measures against the previous violation of the Act on November 2, 2016 as long as the new violation was discovered in the process of taking measures against the same violation, but the Defendant should have taken measures for consolidation separately and separately, thereby making ex officio changing the said measures to one month as the suspension of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each of subparagraph 1.

참조조문

-식품위생법 제44조 제2항 제4호

유사 판례

-대법원 2016.12.27 2016두48102

-부산지방법원 2016.09.02 2016구합1685

-인천지방법원 2020.04.24 2019구단1743

-인천지방법원 2016.07.29 2015구단1721

-부산지방법원 2015.01.16 2014구합22466