1. The business suspension disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 16, 2019 shall be revoked for six days.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff operates a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On July 16, 2019, the Defendant rendered a six-day disposition of business suspension on the ground that “ around 00:30 on February 22, 2019, the instant restaurant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles” to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the grounds for the whole pleadings, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the entry of the attached documents of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

The plaintiff asserted whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, and on the premise of the misunderstanding that the grounds for the disposition of this case applied to him/her are "the act of allowing juveniles to enter a business establishment prohibiting access to juveniles."

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a simple clerical error in the pertinent part through the reference document on April 23, 2020. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the grounds for the instant disposition.

D, a juvenile who was provided with alcoholic beverages on the day of the case, abused the identification card of punishment, thereby doing so as to be an adult.

There is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the neglect of duty to provide alcoholic beverages to D.

Considering the developments leading up to the occurrence of the violation, the economic loss incurred by the Plaintiff, etc., the instant disposition was a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

Judgment

Sanction against violation of administrative regulations is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, it does not require the intention or negligence of the violator. However, it does not require that a punishment may not be imposed even if there is a justifiable reason that does not lead to the failure of the violator to perform his/her duties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Nu255, Sept. 14, 1976; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). From the restaurant of this case, D, a juvenile, on February 22, 2019.