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

A. The Plaintiff is a general restaurant operator of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On March 10, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act on the ground that he/she sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles D (E), F (G) and H (I) in the restaurant of this case, and that such summary order became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that he/she had sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

C. 1) On May 23, 2018, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the restaurant of this case pursuant to Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act. 2) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the appeal and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the above disposition of business suspension on July 9, 2018 by one month.

Accordingly, on July 23, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the disposition of the initial business suspension period of two months is changed to the disposition of the business suspension of one month and ten days.

(hereinafter referred to as the above, the disposition of May 23, 2018, which was mitigated as of May 10, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 7, and Eul Nos. 1 through 8 (including the serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff 1 provided liquor to juveniles in the restaurant of this case, but at the time, the plaintiff demanded four of 10 customers to present his identification card and confirmed that he was living in 196. The remaining six persons were to inspect their identification card before the tugboat and to verify that they were adults. Thus, the plaintiff did not examine their identification card separately.

At the time of completion of the business, three customers who confirmed the identification card by the Plaintiff were all other visitors who did not verify the identification card and did not confirm the identification card.