1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2017, when the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant in the area of 180 square meters in the name of “C,” in the name of “C” in the territory of the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 700,00,00 for a fine of KRW 70,00,000, which was discovered to the Incheon Southern Police Station as an employee D’s provision of alcoholic beverages to 6 juveniles. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence by filing a request for formal trial with the court 2017 High

B. According to the judgment of the foregoing suspended sentence, the Defendant imposed a reduction of 1/2 from 2 months of business suspension to 1/2, and was dissatisfied with the disposition of the suspension of business, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on December 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by six customers, but only part of whom was identified as juveniles, and the Plaintiff, the employer, has provided faithful education to employees in relation to the examination of juvenile identification card and has a significant impact on their livelihood due to the suspension of business. Considering that the instant disposition of suspension of business was unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretion.

B. Sanction against violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, it is always possible to impose a sanction against the person stipulated by the law as the person in charge of the law, not the actual actor. In principle, it does not require the violator's intention or negligence. However, if there is a justifiable reason that does not cause any violation of the duty of the violator, it is impossible to impose it.

(Supreme Court Decision 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 2000). Even if some of the customers confirmed that they were adults and provided alcoholic beverages, if some of them were juveniles, such reasons constitute grounds for mitigation of disposition.