1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On June 22, 2020, the Defendant kept a dry Blue with the aim of cooking at the instant restaurant on February 28, 2020 (2j) and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 31,800,000 (in lieu of one month of business suspension) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant restaurant kept a dry Blue with the lapse of the distribution period” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The Defendant did not dispute [the grounds for recognition]; the Plaintiff’s each entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Nos. 4 through 8 (including the numbers), the grounds for the entire pleadings, and the entire purport of the pleadings, as stated in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

With respect to the assertion that there is no reason to dispose of the legality of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserts that, “An employee D, who was scheduled to work only until the date of detection ( February 28, 2020), was put in a restaurant cooling house and reported to the Defendant by inserting a dry blue, the distribution period of which has elapsed in bad faith, into the restaurant cooling house, and the Plaintiff did not treat the dry blue products.”

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the overall purport of the pleadings, Eul received a civil petition from the defendant on February 21, 2020 that it is necessary to conduct an on-site inspection of the restaurant of this case on the ground of "violation of the Illegal Supply and Sanitary Act". The defendant discovered dry blus from the restaurant cooling house by regulating the restaurant of this case on February 28, 2020, up to February 12, 2020, the plaintiff representative director F was found to have stored the defendant with dry blus products (materials) for which the distribution period has elapsed" at the time of detection.

Inasmuch as the fact was found that the Plaintiff prepared and executed a written confirmation to the effect that “the product was sold in the restaurant of this case, the type of the product, civil petitioner and civil petition time, the timing and place of detection, the usage of the discovered construction blue, the representative director’s name and contents.”