2016Guhap6522 Revocation of business suspension

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

March 9, 2017

March 30, 2017

1. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant revoked the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of seven days of business suspension against the Plaintiff on January 12, 2015.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is operating E (hereinafter referred to as the "business establishment of this case") under the trade name of "D" in Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

B. On October 11, 2014, around 206: around 20, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending business operation for two months pursuant to Article 75 of the Food and Living Standards Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on January 12, 2015, on the ground that F, an employee of the Plaintiff, provided alcoholic beverages to two juveniles, including 00 and 00, within the instant business establishment.

C. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the said disposition, and the Ulsan Metropolitan City Administrative Adjudication Committee rendered a ruling on October 6, 2016, changing the said disposition into a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of seven days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, at the time, the Plaintiff did not recognize that the other party who provided alcoholic beverages was a juvenile, and caused no negligence in relation thereto, the instant disposition was unlawful because it did not have any grounds for disposition or deviates from or abused discretion.

B. Determination

Administrative order punishment is a sanction against the objective fact that it is a violation of an obligation to maintain administrative order, so it is not a real offender, and in principle, it is imposed on a person prescribed by the law as a person in charge of the violation, even though it is not a person in charge of the violation, and in principle, it is not unreasonable for the violator to be aware of the obligation. Thus, if there is any justifiable reason that it is impossible for the violator to cause a failure to perform the obligation, such as when there is a circumstance where it is reasonable to present it, or when there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable to expect the party to perform the obligation, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 2000).

살피건대 , 갑 제4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 17 내지 20 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 35 , 40호증 ( 가지번호 포함 ) 의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 , ① 원고가 평소 F을 비롯한 이 사건 업 소의 직원들에게 미성년자에 대한 신분증 확인을 철저히 하도록 교육한 것으로 보이는 점 , ② 청소년인 윤00 , 정00은 성년인 일행 2명과 함께 이 사건 업소에 들어온 점 , ③ F은 윤00 , 정00로부터 신분증을 제시받아 이를 확인하였고 , 특히 정00의 신분증을 확 인함에 있어서는 다른 일행들보다 오랜 시간을 들여 세심하게 살펴본 점 , ④ 윤00 , 정 00은 이 사건 업소에 가기 전에 다른 음식점에서도 술을 주문하여 마셨을 뿐 아니라 , 이 사건 업소에 들어간 후에 F이 이들의 신분증을 확인하려고 하자 정00은 곧바로 화 장실로 들어갔고 , 윤00은 F으로부터 신분증을 확인 받자마자 이를 들고 화장실로 따라 들어가 정00에게 위 신분증을 건넸으며 , 이후 정00이 화장실에서 나와 위와 같이 윤00 로부터 건네받은 신분증을 F에게 제시하였던 점 , ⑤ F은 위 청소년들에게 주류를 제공 한 사실로 울산지방법원 2014고약13589호로 벌금 100만 원의 약식명령을 받고 같은 법원 2015고정96호로 정식재판을 청구하였고 , 이에 위 법원이 2016 . 2 . 16 . 앞에서 본 사정들을 이유로 F이 정00 , 윤00에게 청소년임을 알면서 주류를 판매하였다고 보기 어 렵다는 취지의 무죄판결을 선고하였으며 , 이에 대하여 검사가 위 법원 2016노382호로 항소하였으나 2016 . 7 . 7 . 항소가 기각되어 그 무렵 위 판결이 그대로 확정된 점을 인 정할 수 있다 .

In light of the above circumstances, F conducted an identification card inspection about 00 and 00 according to the Plaintiff’s education, but F is believed to have sold alcoholic beverages believed to be an adult since it is difficult for the above juveniles to know the fact that they are juveniles, and as such, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties is not attributable to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is difficult to see that the reason thereof is recognized.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

Judges Kim Tae-tae

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jong-hoon