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

A. From April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the trade name “C” from Daegu-gu, Seogu.

B. On July 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on August 18, 2017 pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with two and five beer diseases each week without verifying the age of 7 juveniles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's non-existence of the ground for disposition was a serious cremation and a short clothes, and talked about tobacco lessons or university professors. The plaintiff's main restaurant was located near D University and its main client was a university student. The employee of the restaurant of this case was not aware of it and did not have any intention to offer liquor to juveniles during his deviation from and abuse of discretionary power. The plaintiff did not offer liquor to juveniles. The plaintiff was in depth and was allowed to offer liquor to juveniles in this case. The worker of the restaurant of this case was suspended from indictment in the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act. The plaintiff's employee of the restaurant of this case was not profits acquired from the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act due to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act. The plaintiff's disposition of this case was unlawful in view of the circumstances that the plaintiff suffered from the disadvantage of this case.

B. 1) Determination of the absence of grounds for disposition is a sanction against the violation of administrative laws and regulations.