The case holding that it is difficult to view that the disposition to revoke the business license for an act of entering a high school without verifying the age of the minors included in the first-class student of the high school who is not 17 years old at least twice or a month after the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business on the ground that he/she entered a minor is an illegal disposition that deviates from discretion.

The case holding that it is difficult to view that the disposition to revoke the business license for the act of entering and leaving a high school without verifying the age of the minors included in the first-year student of the high school who is not 17 years old at once again within one month after the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business on the ground that he/she entered and entered a minor is an illegal disposition that deviates from discretion.

Articles 31 and 58 of the Food Sanitation Act, Articles 42 and 53 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 885 of Dec. 28, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu48 Decided June 25, 1985 (Gong1985, 1078) 85Nu288 Decided June 25, 1985 (Gong1985, 1078) 91Nu8463 Decided March 27, 1992

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu1752 delivered on February 3, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above disposition of non-party 1's disposal of the plaintiff 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party

However, if the plaintiff's non-party 3, who is a minor, did not enter the above enterprise and the degree of the violation, were examined, and pursuant to Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by December 28, 191), Article 42, subparagraph 9 of the same Act, which was enforced at the time of the plaintiff's act of violation, the entertainment service provider must check the age of the visitors and prohibit them from entering the school. According to the evidence employed by the court below, it is hard to find that the above non-party 3 was a minor who attended the first year of January 27, 191 and whose body house was small, and it is hard to find that the non-party 1 was not a minor's age since the non-party 3 was not a minor's age since the non-party 3 was not a minor's age since it was not a 16th year old and 6th year old as of July 7, 197, it was hard to see that the remaining non-party 1's age was a minor.

Then, we examine whether the disposition of this case is an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretionary authority. Generally, the issue of whether the disposition of this case goes beyond the scope of discretionary authority is judged by comparing it with the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to the disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the ground for disposition, the public interest achieved by the disposition, and all the circumstances in question. In this case, the position of the plaintiff company, the age of customers, the age of the plaintiff's business operator, the plaintiff's violation of other business regulations, the public restaurant business cannot change the type of business due to the public restaurant business. In the building where the plaintiff company is located, even if the plaintiff and employees suffered from the disposition of this case, it is necessary for the public interest to promote and protect minors in a sound manner by prohibiting the entry of minors to entertainment entertainment entertainment establishments, and as seen above, it is hard to view that the plaintiff's disposition of this case is an unlawful disposition of this case 15 months prior to the above violation of the administrative disposition of this case's 2.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretion, which held that the disposition of this case was an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretion, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)