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 February 5, 2015, the Defendant offered and sold liquor to the Plaintiff on December 25, 2015, at around 20:00, to the juvenile 7 persons at the bar bar of the trade name “C” in the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, that the Plaintiff runs (hereinafter “instant business”).

(hereinafter “instant violation”) under Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, two months of business suspension (from February 23, 2015 to April 23, 2015) were imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on March 30, 2015, and the Defendant changed the period of business suspension from April 27, 2015 to June 25, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant violation, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s employee visited the instant business establishment was an adult by presenting two identification cards to verify that the Plaintiff’s employee was an adult, and provided alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful, on the grounds that the employee provided alcoholic beverages to two adult women who confirmed identification cards, not providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and there are circumstances suspected of naval control. 2) The Plaintiff is running the instant business establishment in a situation where the health is not good due to urology and high blood pressure, and there was no record of being issued an administrative disposition for five years prior to the instant violation, and the instant violation was caused by minor and minor negligence, and the Plaintiff’s criticism.