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

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Nam-gu, Incheon.

B. On August 21, 2019, around 02:00, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to juvenile D (the age of 18) without verifying the age, such as status, etc.

(hereinafter “instant violation”) was discovered on the ground that the instant violation was committed.

Accordingly, on October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending prosecution from the public prosecutor of Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office.

C. The Defendant: (a) received a two-month prior notice of business suspension; (b) received a written opinion from the Plaintiff; and (c) sought a criminal case processing result against the Plaintiff; and (d) on October 17, 2019, “the instant disposition” against the Plaintiff is deemed to be “the instant disposition of business suspension for one month or less.”

D. The administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the instant disposition was dismissed on November 25, 2019. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 7, and Eul’s 1 through 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's alleged juvenile D intentionally shown his/her identification card of adult friendship and entered the restaurant of this case. The disposition of this case, which decided to suspend business operations for one month by reducing only two minutes without mitigation or reduction within the scope of not more than 9/10, is unlawful because it is excessively harsh to the plaintiff.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination of the purport of the non-existence of the grounds for disposition or the assertion that there exists a justifiable reason is a judgment) The sanctions imposed on the violation of the administrative laws are imposed based on the objective fact of the violation of the administrative laws in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform the duty of the violator is not caused due to a justifiable reason, it may be imposed even if the violator does not have intention or negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003), and the Food Sanitation Act.