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

A. From March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant in the name of “C” in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Defendant issued two-month business suspension against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act on December 1, 2016 and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff did not verify the identification card to three juveniles (the age of 18) on September 14, 2016; and (b) provided the Plaintiff with an amount equivalent to 30,000 won of the market price, such as the small-scale 2 Man-ju and four Man-ju (the age of 18).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On January 31, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission) filed an administrative appeal, and rendered a decision to suspend business operations for the Plaintiff on the two-month disposition of suspension of business on January 31, 2017, to reduce the suspension of business by ten days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was thoroughly supervised the access of the ordinary juveniles, but the juveniles were not able to conduct an identification card inspection due to maturity on the date of detection, and at the time, juveniles were forced to escape without paying food, and report the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is suspended from the instant disposition, the instant disposition is deemed to have been excessively harshly abused and abused the discretion.

B. In light of the above-mentioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, the following circumstances are revealed. In other words, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff failed to conduct an identification inspection against the instant juveniles, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff violated the duty to protect juveniles. The public interest should be promoted so that juveniles can grow as sound character by protecting juveniles from a harmful environment.