1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, along with wife B, operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On March 26, 2019, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,900,000 (in lieu of business suspension one month) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant restaurant around February 14, 2019.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, as described in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, the grounds for the whole pleadings, and the reasons for the purport of the whole pleadings, as specified in the attached

Juveniles who received alcoholic beverages on the day of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition were visiting the restaurant of this case at least one week, presenting another’s identification card, and doing so as to be adults.

B memoryed this as an adult and provided alcoholic beverages on the day of the instant case without identification of identification.

The revised Food Sanitation Act provides that administrative disposition may be exempted in such cases, and the penalty surcharge imposed in this case that occurred not later than four months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Act is illegal by abusing discretion when considering equity, etc.

Judgment

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power, the determination should be made by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to the disposition, such as the content and degree of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the necessity of public interest to be achieved by the disposition, the disadvantage suffered by an individual, and various relevant circumstances.

Even if the criteria for such a disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and there is no effect to externally bind citizens or courts.

Therefore, the legality of the disposition is not only the disposition standards.