Whether the act of providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles under Article 31 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act constitutes an act of providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles where only adults drink alcoholic beverages at the time of a restaurant operator's drinking (negative with qualification)

In a case where a person who operates a restaurant was only an adult at the time of giving alcohol to the persons who have entered the restaurant, and later a person has drinking alcoholic beverages only, and later became a youth, the restaurant operator cannot be deemed to have provided alcoholic beverages to a juvenile under Article 31 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act, unless there was a circumstance for a restaurant operator to anticipate that the juvenile is a joint member of the restaurant later, or the juvenile has provided additional alcoholic beverages when recognizing that person was a joint member of the restaurant, or unless there was an additional provision of alcoholic beverages, then the restaurant operator later cannot be deemed to have provided alcoholic beverages to the juvenile.

Article 31 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4069 Decided October 9, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2504) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6032 Decided January 11, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 510)

Plaintiff

Market for Lighting

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu4170 delivered on January 19, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where a person who operates a restaurant was only an adult at the time of a drinking alcohol to the persons who enter the restaurant, and later a person drinks alcoholic beverages only, and later became a youth, the restaurant operator is not deemed to have engaged in an act of providing alcoholic beverages to a juvenile under Article 31 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act even if he/she actually drinks a part of alcoholic beverages, unless the restaurant operator was under circumstances that could anticipate that the juvenile would be a joint member of the restaurant later, or he/she was given an additional alcoholic beverage when he/she became a joint member of the restaurant. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6032, Jan. 11, 2002).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the decision of the court below that the plaintiff, who is a general restaurant operator, cannot be deemed to have provided alcoholic beverages to the non-party 1, 2, and 3 who is a juvenile, is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 31 (2) 4 of the Food Sanitation Act, as alleged in

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)