logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.30 2015구단32012
과징금부과처분취소
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 is running food service business with the trade name “C” in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu.

B. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 15,600,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2014, and the Plaintiff received the suspension of sentence from the Sungwon District Court branch on September 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A 1-1 to 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s person who provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant business establishment is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s employee D. (2) Even if there are legal grounds for imposing a penalty surcharge on the Plaintiff, according to the criteria for imposing a penalty surcharge under the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, which is the basis of the instant disposition, the amount of the penalty surcharge equivalent to the day of business suspension, can be selected between KRW 450,000 to KRW 520,00,000,000, which is revised on March 30, 2015 and adjusted the amount of the penalty surcharge equivalent to the day of business suspension to KRW 3,90,000,000,000,0000,000 won, which is the basis of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff ordered the ordinary employees to thoroughly conduct an identification card inspection on the juvenile. The instant disposition is unlawful by excessively deviating from and abusing discretion.

B. The plaintiff's employee D, who is the title holder of permission for food entertainment business, also provides liquor to juveniles. Thus, the plaintiff's employee D, who is the title holder of permission for food entertainment business, should be subject to administrative responsibilities due to the above violation of administrative laws and regulations.

arrow