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

A. On December 19, 2016, while running a general restaurant in the name of Kimpo-si B, the Plaintiff was discovered as a police officer on the ground that he/she provided alcoholic beverages to six juveniles on December 19, 2016. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a written opinion from the Plaintiff that he/she reserved the disposition from the Plaintiff until the criminal judgment against employees D; (b) confirmed that D had already been subject to a fine of KRW 300,000 from the Busan District Office while waiting for the criminal trial; and (c) issued a two-month disposition of business suspension due to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act on December 20, 2017.

B. However, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on March 5, 2018, and received a fine of KRW 300,000,000, which is a minor fine, and in consideration of the fact that there have been no record of violation, the two-month disposition of the suspension of business was excessive, and thus, it was reasonable to change the said two-month disposition to 40 days.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made through thorough management and supervision to prevent juveniles from providing alcoholic beverages to his/her employees, and the actual juvenile confirmed is limited to two persons, and the disposition was made after the lapse of 10 months from the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s opinion within 14 days from the date of submission of his/her opinion pursuant to Article 27 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Thus, the instant disposition is substantial or procedurally unlawful.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, it may be imposed even if there is no intention or negligence on the part of the violator, barring special circumstances, such as where there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the violator of the duty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177 Decided September 2, 2003). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff is deemed to have become the Plaintiff.