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

A. From December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Yong-Gun, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months pursuant to Article 44(2)4 and Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 and attached Table 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff on September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the juveniles D (nives, 1997 students) and to three other persons.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but the above claim was dismissed on February 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 남편과 함께 이 사건 음식점을 운영하고 있는데, 청소년에게 주류를 판매하였다고 적발된 날은 추석 연휴기간으로 손님이 많아 바빴고, 주류를 주문한 손님이 외관상 성인처럼 보여서 신분증을 제대로 확인하지 못한 채 주류를 판매하게 된 점, 원고는 이전에 청소년에게 주류를 판매한 것으로 적발된 전력이 없었던 점, 원고가 경제적으로 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 처분은 지나치게 가혹하여 재량권을 일탈남용한 것으로 위법하다.

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

C. 1) Determination of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be made by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all the relevant circumstances, etc., and comparing and determining the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to such disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1519, Sept. 24, 2002). In addition, sanctions against the violation of administrative laws and regulations are imposed.