logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.08.29 2016구단65476
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

From January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff is operating C in Jung-gu, Seoul.

The Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension on March 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the size of the place of business and make a report of change (the reported restaurant size was more than the reported restaurant size) pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act.

On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission). The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission) rendered a ruling that “the business suspension of seven days is changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge

On October 7, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,640,00 in lieu of the three days of business suspension on the Plaintiff on October 7, 2016.

(B) As seen earlier, the Defendant did not specifically inform the Plaintiff of the change in the size of the place of business, the changed area of the changed area of the place of business and the time of change in the size of the place of business, etc. while rendering the instant disposition in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute; (b) the Plaintiff did not know of the change in the size of the place of business before the instant disposition; and (c) the Plaintiff did not immediately violate Articles 21(1) and 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to present the facts, details, and grounds for the change in the imposition of the penalty surcharge. (d) The Plaintiff did not know of the change in the size of the place of business prior to the instant disposition; and (e) the Defendant did not report the change in the size of the place of business without any knowledge.

arrow