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 October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff has operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name of “C points” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, 112, and 113 from around October 6, 2015.

B. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff controlled the police on the ground that the instant establishment offered alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

(hereinafter the above act of providing liquor to juveniles is deemed to constitute a violation of this case.

On June 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of the suspension of business pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground of the instant violation, for two months (from June 23, 2016 to August 21, 2016).

(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”). D.

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the initial disposition, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made a decision on partial acceptance on July 25, 2016, stating that “The first disposition is modified to the disposition of business suspension for one month.”

E. Accordingly, on August 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension of one month (from August 24, 2016 to September 22, 2016) on the ground of the instant violation against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 5, 6, and Eul’s 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s employee E provided alcoholic beverages after confirming the two resident registration certificates of sons, which had first been contained in the instant business establishment, and thereafter providing three juveniles in the future E, so E, even though they made best efforts to verify the adultity of customers, E, thereby having provided alcoholic beverages by active deception of juveniles. Thus, E did not intend to provide alcoholic beverages intentionally or by negligence, thereby violating Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act.