The case holding that the disposition of suspension of business is unlawful as it deviates from discretion, on the ground that a person operating a mass restaurant business has sold beer without confirming the age to a woman who has reached the age of five months before reaching the age of majority.

The case holding that since the disposition of business suspension on the ground that a person who conducts a popular restaurant business sells beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's beer's bet

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 31 and 58 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 42 subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Lee & Lee Lee-young

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Imaty)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9560 delivered on December 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff, who operated a business with a license for the mass restaurant business from May 29, 1990 to 20:0, sold alcoholic beverages to the non-party 1, who is a minor, at the above date and time, sold and provided the alcoholic beverages to the non-party 1 in accordance with the food sanitation law, but the plaintiff installed about 34 square meters of the above 14-day store and sold 14 food consignment to the non-party 1 in the office near the above 5-day office without any specific reason for the disposition of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 in light of the above fact that the non-party 1, as the occupant of the department store near the above 5-day store, did not know the non-party 1's face without any specific reason for the non-party 1's appearance and the non-party 1's order of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, who was aware of it.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)