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 September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” from around September 3, 2015.

B. On December 6, 2016, the Defendant rendered one-month disposition against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2017, pursuant to Articles 75(1) and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff provided two juveniles (one-six years of age; hereinafter “instant juveniles”) with one disease without verifying their age.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not provide alcoholic beverages to the juveniles of this case, but the juveniles of this case did not receive the plaintiff's alcoholic beverages and reported it to the police with arbitr and mother, and the plaintiff did not have the awareness that he would provide alcoholic beverages to the juveniles, and did not hold the plaintiff responsible for the violation.

B. 1) Determination of the existence of the grounds for disposition is a sanction against a violation of the administrative law, which is imposed upon the objective fact that the violation of the administrative law is committed to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, a sanction may be imposed even if there is no intention or negligence on the violator, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the violator.

(B) In the instant case, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 (which has a serial number) and the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and the result of the verification by this court as to Gap evidence No. 4.

① The instant juveniles were entered the instant restaurant around December 6, 2016, and around December 21:23, 2016, and the Plaintiff was the said juveniles.