logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.08 2019구단10415
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates a general restaurant in the name of “C high-tech store” in Gwangju Mine-gu.

B. At around 20:00 on February 11, 2018, the Plaintiff and the restaurant jointly run the restaurant, D sold to 5 juveniles a week 2 bottles and 3 bottles a week to 5 juveniles.

(hereinafter “instant violation 1”). C.

The Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 70,000 on May 21, 2018 with regard to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (hereinafter “instant violation”) on the following occasions: (a) while the Plaintiff’s employee, submitted a written opinion from the Plaintiff and waiting for the treatment of the case against D, the Defendant sold two soldiers to two juveniles in the above restaurant (hereinafter “instant violation”). On March 24, 2018; (b) On the other hand, the Gwangju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 on the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (hereinafter “instant violation”); (c) on August 31, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 70,000 as to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act (hereinafter “instant violation”). The Defendant issued a three-month prior notice of business suspension; and (d) received criminal case treatment results from the Plaintiff; and (d) issued a notice of business suspension pursuant to Article 8(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “Business Suspension Act”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on February 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Youths who visited the above restaurant at the time of the Plaintiff’s violation of Article 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion had been a son who visited the above restaurant before that time, but was forged at the time of the first visit.

arrow