2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The Plaintiff and the Selection B (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) jointly operated a general restaurant with the trade name “A building in Ansan-si and “D” in 2201. The Defendant, around August 29, 2014, issued a disposition of business suspension for two months in accordance with Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff et al. sold app 1 disease to a juvenile E, a juvenile, on August 29, 2014.

B. Next, in the administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff et al., the disposition of business suspension for two months was changed to 20 days in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. was only one juvenile and the remaining work is adult.

C. Meanwhile, on October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 500,000 from the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch on the ground that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles as above, and the said summary order became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not request formal trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 3-2, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 1, and Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, five adults were provided with a branch of 1 Bodrida and a branch of 1 rank, and thereafter, 1 juvenile was additionally present for more than several minutes, and 1 adult is calculated by calculating the food value and leaving a restaurant.

Plaintiff

Before the juvenile was present, the juvenile provided alcoholic beverages when there are adults, and at that time, the juvenile could not be said to have been able to be able to be able to shotly, and there was no further provision of alcoholic beverages after the juvenile was able to sit together.

Therefore, since the plaintiff et al. cannot be deemed to have provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, the disposition of this case is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 7, 8, and Nos. 4 and 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff et al. was bad for the Plaintiff et al. to have approximately 40 customers with approximately 10 tables at the time.