2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) in the name of “C” on the second floor of the building B at Silung-si.

B. On January 24, 2014, around 03:30 on January 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on June 12, 2014, on the ground that D, an employee of the Plaintiff, provided alcoholic beverages to one juvenile E within the instant business establishment.

C. On January 7, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal, and changed the disposition of business suspension for two months as of January 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff had first been at the instant business establishment by the F and one adult. With respect to F, the Plaintiff confirmed a forged identification card without knowing the forgery thereof on January 1, 2014, and was aware that F was an adult. After that, it could not be anticipated that E, a juvenile, entered the instant business establishment and did not recognize it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful since there was no ground for disposition.

B. Since a punitive administrative disposition is a sanction based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, in principle, it does not require the offender’s intentional negligence, but is not subject to any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason that does not cause the offender’s neglect of duty.

The following circumstances, which are recognized as a comprehensive consideration of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12, are likely to use other person's identification cards at the drinking house. The plaintiff's employee was presented by F at the beginning of January 2014.