2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. The Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant main shop”) with the trade name “D” in Busan Dong-gu, Busan.

B. Around 04:50 on August 29, 2015, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who was employed as an employee of the instant main office offered alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant main office, but was found to have been discovered by the police. For this reason, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months on January 11, 2016 against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On March 4, 2016, the Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff’s status as the proprietor of the instant main points.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Intervenor’s assertion (i) obligation to not provide juvenile alcoholic beverages under the Food Sanitation Act is a food service business operator. In this case, the Plaintiff’s employee, who is not a food service business operator, provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of rule of law and the principle of responsibility.

Therefore, there is no ground for the instant disposition.

See The instant disposition was excessively excessive sanction and abused discretion.

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

C. (1) The sanctions against the violation of the administrative law regarding the absence of the grounds for disposition are sanctions to be imposed on the objective facts of the violation of the administrative law to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, the sanctions are imposed on the person stipulated by the law as the person in charge of the law, not on the actual actor. In principle, unless there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the violator's duty of care.