beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2015 is revoked for one month.
2. Paragraph 1.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is operating a restaurant “C” in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. On October 12, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff offered alcoholic beverages to juveniles D, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on November 27, 2014, and the Defendant, on January 8, 2015, mitigated the Plaintiff from 1/2 of the disposition standards pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, thereby reducing the Plaintiff from 1/2 of the business suspension period (from January 26, 2015 to February 24, 2015).
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 3, 7, 1, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. On October 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion verified D’s identification card as of October 12, 2014, and D did not know that it was a juvenile by presenting another person’s identification card, and was threatened with a threat of livelihood by the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Determination 1) Sanction against a violation of administrative laws is imposed based on the objective fact that it is a violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, even if the violator did not have intention or negligence, it may be imposed even if it is difficult for the violator to know his/her duty, and there are special circumstances where it is unreasonable for the violator to expect him/her to fulfill his/her duty, such as when there are circumstances where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect him/her to perform his/her duty, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012). 2) Comprehensively taking into account the written evidence No. 10 evidence No. 10 and the overall purport of arguments, the above evidence evidence No. 10 should not be imposed. 1. D’s daily behaviors were all adults at the time of October 12, 2014; 2. D’s volume was 15§¯ or 195 kilograms of college students.