1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the trade name of “C” from December 16, 2013 to Daegu Northern-gu B.

B. On April 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a two-month disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2017 pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided three juveniles (15 years of age) with an amount equivalent to KRW 22,300,00,000, such as the three branch owners, and three branch owners, respectively.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal. On the other hand, on the ground that the two-month disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff was excessive, the Plaintiff rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension by 20 days. On August 21, 2017, the Defendant changed the instant disposition against the Plaintiff by 20 days of business suspension.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The juvenile who provided alcoholic beverages by the plaintiff is the juvenile belonging to the non-existence of the disposition reason, who presented a forged identification card or who is an adult customer's friendship, and the employee of the restaurant of this case was aware of this fact on the date of crackdown, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) The circumstances are circumstances to consider as follows: since the employee of the restaurant of this case was allowed to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the case of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power; the employee of the restaurant of this case was subject to suspension of indictment; and the restaurant was operated with the loan of money; and the business was suspended; and the damage was great to the plaintiff. Considering the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff due to the disposition of this case and the above circumstances, the disposition of this case was

B. (1) Determination 1) Determination of the absence of grounds for disposition should be made on the assertion that there is no grounds for disposition, and sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative laws should achieve administrative objectives.