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

A. On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the report on succession to the status of the business entity with respect to Cran tavern located in Busan Dong-gu B, and operated the danran bar with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On July 10, 2014, around 23:45, the police officers belonging to the Busan East Police Station E District Department discovered that they had access to the instant business establishment from F (G) and eight other juveniles and offered alcoholic beverages to them. On July 11, 2014, the head of the same police station notified the Defendant of the violation of the law by entering the instant business establishment and selling juvenile alcoholic beverages.

C. Accordingly, on September 1, 2014, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s submission of opinions through the prior notification procedure, and subsequently issued an administrative disposition of business suspension two months (from September 16, 2014 to November 14, 2014) pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. On October 21, 2014, the Busan Metropolitan Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had only one son at the time of the detection of the case, and thereafter, several juveniles were fluent with each other, and the plaintiff demanded the juvenile to present his identification card, but he had been able to other customers with the wind that other customers could not sell alcoholic beverages because he did not present her identification card. However, on the day, the plaintiff was fluort with other customers.