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 July 14, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) was operating a general restaurant in the name of “C” in Gyeongnam-si, and Nonparty D, an employee, provided the Plaintiff’s business office to the juvenile E (16 years of age) and eight (8) persons, including the Plaintiff’s 16 years of age, with a total of 10 illness alcoholic beverages.

After that, D received a summary order of KRW 700,000,000, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Accordingly, on February 27, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition for the suspension of business for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

C. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on April 30, 2019, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's person who provided the plaintiff's alleged alcoholic beverages is an employee of the plaintiff and is not the plaintiff. The disposition of this case to the plaintiff, who is the business operator, is unlawful by law.

Ordering the Plaintiff to suspend his/her business for three months constitutes abuse of discretionary power, which deprives the Plaintiff of his/her livelihood.

B. (1) The imposition of a sanction against a violation of an administrative law regarding the existence of the grounds for disposition is a sanction against the objective fact of the violation of an administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, it is not a real offender, but a person prescribed by the law as the person responsible for the violation, and barring any special circumstance, it may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972 delivered on May 26, 2000, 2002Du5177 delivered on September 2, 2003, etc.). As seen earlier, the instant violation was committed by an employee entrusted with customer service by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is a person in charge under the law of prohibited acts under Article 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act.