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

A. The Plaintiff reported food service business (type of business: general restaurant) with respect to the instant business establishment with the trade name “C” on the first floor in Songpa-gu Seoul and the first floor (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On April 27, 2017, Nonparty D actually operated the instant establishment with the Plaintiff’s children, and Nonparty D was indicted on suspicion of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act on the ground that at the instant establishment around April 23:30, 2017, Nonparty D sold alcoholic beverages to Juvenile E (the age of 16) and F (the age of 16) (hereinafter “subject juveniles”).

Accordingly, D filed a request for formal trial, and the Seoul Eastern District Court (2017 High Court Decision 1175) sentenced D to a fine of KRW 300,000 on June 19, 2018, and D appealed but dismissed on October 26, 2018.

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2018No893). Since then, D filed an appeal, which became final and conclusive on November 3, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”). (c)

On November 6, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of the suspension of business pursuant to Articles 44(2) and 75 of the former Food Sanitation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15943, Dec. 11, 2018) for the reason that the Defendant provided alcoholic beverages to the relevant juveniles at the instant establishment on April 27, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 10, 14, 15, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) At the time D was an adult at the time of providing a lawsuit, and the subjected juveniles were joined thereafter, but at the time D was able to take charge of a mixed-solitary day and a negligent ice, and did not know at all. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that D provided a alcoholic beverage to the subject juveniles, and therefore, the instant disposition cause of this case cannot be acknowledged.