logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.11.11 2020구단1050
영업정지처분취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff has been operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “C”).

B. On January 8, 2020, the Busan Summer Police Station notified the Defendant of the detection of a violation of laws and regulations that “the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant restaurant around January 7, 2020”.

C. Meanwhile, on April 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above disposition after receiving a disposition of suspension of business for three months from the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant restaurant around March 16, 2019” from the Defendant, and received a disposition of suspension of business for one month for a period of suspension following a recommendation of adjustment during the lawsuit.

On March 26, 2020, on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 75(2) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months against the Plaintiff based on Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Busan Metropolitan Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on April 28, 2020. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed [Article 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 4, 2, 5, and 6]

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion (1) around January 23:30, 2020, the plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages and junices ordered by two male customers who are 21 years of age to the restaurant of this case, and then entered the house to the house, and the above women's scambling and scambling of the above women's scams, and was discovered to the police, and the plaintiff became aware of the fact that the juvenile was scambling from the house, and there was no provision of alcoholic beverages to the juvenile.

(2) The Plaintiff is an unmarried woman aged 59 who is operated with the instant restaurant without difficulty. The Plaintiff is an unmarried woman with poor mobility.

arrow