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 name of “C” in Daegu Northern-gu B.

B. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) from April 14, 2016 to April 15, 2016, at the instant establishment operated by the Plaintiff from the chief of the Daegu Northern Branch Police Station, D, an employee of the Defendant, d, was present in company with the employee and drink together with the employee.

“The instant violation was notified.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 8, 2016, and Articles 44(3), (4), and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

II. 3. 10(a)(i) and [Attachment 17] subparag. 6(l)(i) of [Attachment 17] order the instant disposition of suspension of business for one month in accordance with the disposition standards against the fact that the general restaurant operator employed entertainment workers to have them provide entertainment services or to encourage or impliedly encourage the employees to do this act.”

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on July 25, 2016.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a summary order of a fine in a criminal case due to the instant violation (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 7772). The said order was finalized.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, Eul 1, 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) Article 44(3) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that “The act of drinking alcohol with son, singing or dancing, which arouses the amusement of the guest, or does not assist another person to do so.” The purport of the above provision is not simply prohibiting the act of drinking alcohol with the guest, but it is a case where the act of drinking alcohol constitutes entertainment of the guest.”

In this case, the plaintiff did not employ workers engaged in entertainment, and when D, who is an employee, has the right to suppress the above customers.