1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is the representative of the general restaurant “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Plaintiff

Without confirming the age between September 29, 2015 and around 01:30 to 03:30 on September 29, 2015, father D sold and provided the child E (the age of 18, South) a week seven disease to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on November 2, 2015, the Defendant rendered two months of business suspension (from November 18, 2015 to January 16, 2016) against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Initial Disposition”). Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the initial disposition, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the initial disposition to the business suspension disposition on February 22, 2016.

Accordingly, on March 16, 2016, the Defendant changed the initial disposition against the Plaintiff by 40 days of business suspension (from April 1, 2016 to May 10, 2016).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) for the remaining 40 days of business suspension that has been reduced as above during the initial disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-7, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unable to find out that the juvenile was mixed in the process of accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s family’s economic situation is difficult, and thus, the instant disposition is too harsh and unlawful.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as a circumstance that the violator does not have knowledge of his/her duty, or a circumstance where the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to be anticipated, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du15139 Decided April 9, 2015, Supreme Court Decision 2014Du15139.