logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.15 2016구단268
과징금부과처분취소
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. From July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff runs entertainment bar business under the trade name “C (hereinafter “instant business”)” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.

B. On October 3, 2015, at around 01:00, the Plaintiff employed male DNA within the instant business establishment, and controlled the police on the ground that he/she had had his/her customers enjoy dancing with sexual intercourse and exposed sexual organ at a stage while complying with them.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”). C.

On March 8, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 60 million in lieu of the business suspension period of two months pursuant to Articles 75(1), 44(1), and 82(1) of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act of disturbance, such as the instant violation, at the instant business establishment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff entered into a stage contribution contract with the D Team, but it was practically difficult for the Plaintiff to supervise and supervise the public performance because it was not the employer. The instant violation is an illegal disposition that deviates from discretionary power because it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused its power, considering the following circumstances: (a) the instant violation was occurred by temporarily interesting the D Team members; (b) the instant violation was committed in an open space during a short period of time; (c) the Plaintiff did not have any record of being subject to the disposition due to the act similar to the instant violation; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have any history of being subject to the disposition similar to the instant violation; and (e) the instant disposition was in an economic depression and is in a situation where the business should be renounced due to the instant disposition.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. (1) Determination is based on whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms.

arrow