logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.02 2017구합2283
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 (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in substantial Gu building B and 114 and 115 of the Cheongju-si.

B. At around 01:00 on March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the outside and third parties of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant violation”). The Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of suspension of indictment on April 27, 2017, taking into account the following: “The Plaintiff’s act of selling alcoholic beverages without confirming identification cards, etc. to the 4 juveniles and selling alcoholic beverages without confirming identification cards, etc. to the 4 juveniles; from around December 2015, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant and operated the instant restaurant; the Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to the juveniles; and the Plaintiff’s act of reflecting depth, such as submitting a reflective document, etc.

C. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Around December 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff, a juvenile who provided alcoholic beverages at the time of the instant violation, showed another person’s identification card, adult happiness, and provided alcoholic beverages without verifying his/her identification card. The Plaintiff was unaware of his/her identification card and did not obtain additional identification card even if he/she had already confirmed that he/she was an adult. Thus, there was no intention or negligence by the Plaintiff as to the provision of alcoholic beverages to juveniles. ② As such, the Plaintiff did not know that he/she was a juvenile due to misappropriation of identification card, on the ground that he/she did not know the fact that he/she was a juvenile.

arrow