1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with the trade name “C” in B 1st floor in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “C”).

B. On April 7, 2013, around 21:00-22:05, at the instant establishment, the Plaintiff was discovered by police that the Plaintiff provided the instant establishment to juveniles D (Nam, 95), E (Inn, 96), F (Inn, 95), G (inn, 95), H (inn, 95), and H (inn, 96).

C. On May 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the business of the instant establishment for two months on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 7, 2013, 2013, juveniles who had been in the instant business establishment had been on several occasions, and confirmed their identification cards at the time of ordering alcohol. The police officer called up two times and confirmed their resident registration certificates, but the police officer was unaware of the forged resident registration certificates, and the Plaintiff’s son was administered with a white blood disease.

Considering the overall circumstances, such as the death of a patient, the fact that the property is almost difficult to satisfy and the loan received and the operation of the instant establishment and the maintenance of livelihood, the instant disposition asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful because it violates the principle of proportionality, and that it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and thus abused discretion or deviates from its scope.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The following circumstances, i.e., the court below’s determination, the evidence as seen above, and the fact-finding by the chief of the Nam-ju Police station, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, can be seen by comprehensively considering the following circumstances: ① the Plaintiff did not properly inspect the entire identification card of the customer, and asked only whether he/she is an adult, and offered alcoholic beverages to the juvenile; ② the Plaintiff was punished by the crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act