(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.07.17 2013구합63773

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.07.17 2013구합63773

담배소매인지정취소처분 취소

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 was subject to a disposition of business suspension for one month from the Defendant around October 2013 (from October 2013 to November 19, 2013; hereinafter “instant business suspension period”) on the ground that he/she sold tobacco to juveniles while operating the C convenience store (hereinafter “instant convenience store”) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Defendant received a report that the Plaintiff sold tobacco three times during the instant suspension period, and confirmed on-site on November 13, 2013, confirmed that tobacco still is displayed at the tobacco display site at the convenience store of this case, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition revoking the designation of tobacco retailers as of December 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2013, the following are examined: (a) the Defendant’s employee written a business trip to check the site at the convenience store of this case; and (b) the statement of the name tag prepared by the Defendant’s employee

The confirmed matter: The date and time of confirming whether tobacco is displayed or not: On November 13, 2013, the tobacco is displayed at the tobacco display site as a result of the verification on whether tobacco is displayed or not, and the tobacco is still in operation. From the business shop owner confirming whether tobacco is sold, there was no talk that the tobacco was not sold during the business suspension period from the business shop owner, and the part that the tobacco was sold implicitly, while recognizing it as to the part that the tobacco was sold, the disposition is too harsh, and the preference is sought.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed the instant lawsuit on December 11, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that he sold tobacco to the customer during the business suspension period of this case, but the plaintiff was at the time.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.16 2014노1668

-수원지방법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2010노2294 판결

-서울행정법원 2014.08.28 2014구합8483

-수원지방법원 2010.10.28 2010노2294

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2010.05.14 2009고정2321