"'Corona Business Crisis Leads to Canned Beer Sales' Noraebang... Court Rules 'Business Suspension Justified'"

The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Amid the business difficulties caused by the spread of COVID-19, a karaoke room owner who sold canned beer to customers filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the district office's business suspension order but lost in the first trial.

On the 31st, according to the legal community, Judge Jeong Wooyong of the Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 8, ruled against plaintiff A, a karaoke room owner, in the first trial of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the business suspension order filed against the Yeongdeungpo District Office in Seoul.

Earlier, on April 29, 2020, around 11:50 PM, A was caught selling alcoholic beverages such as canned beer to customers while operating a karaoke room in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. On May 25, the district office pointed out A’s violation and imposed a 10-day business suspension order.

According to the current Act on the Promotion of the Music Industry and its enforcement regulations, karaoke room operators must not sell or provide alcoholic beverages to customers. The mayor, county governor, or district office head may impose administrative sanctions on operators who violate these compliance requirements, and the standard penalty for a first violation is a 10-day business suspension.

In court, A’s side argued, "The violation occurred because customers said they would leave the karaoke room if their request for alcohol provision was not accepted, so it was unavoidable," and "Considering the difficulties in business due to COVID-19 at the time, the 10-day business suspension is excessively unlawful and should be canceled."

The first trial court dismissed A’s claim, stating, "The plaintiff’s argument is without merit, and this sanction is lawful."

Judge Jeong stated, "The legality of the sanction must be judged not only by the sanction standards but also by the provisions and purposes of related laws," and "Even considering the circumstances claimed by the plaintiff, it cannot be seen that this sanction exceeded or abused discretionary authority."

The court found that the sanction standards applied to A are not inherently unconstitutional or unlawful, and there is no reasonable basis to recognize that the application of these standards resulted in a sanction that is manifestly unfair in light of the provisions and purposes of related laws.

Since A did not appeal, this ruling became final as is.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.