1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff on August 11, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C” in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Yongsan-gu B and 103.

B. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff provided liquor to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff provided liquor to the six juveniles at the above establishment on February 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in case of additional number), the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been installed with fingerprints recognition devices and CCTVs, and throughout that period, juveniles at issue were thoroughly able to inspect their identification cards on the day of the instant case, and thus, the Plaintiff failed to inspect their identification cards on February 8, 2014, which is the day of the instant case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it did not comply with the business operator’s obligations.

In addition, considering the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff’s economic situation, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. Since a punitive administrative disposition is a sanction based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, in principle, it does not require the offender’s intentional negligence, but is not subject to any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason that does not cause the offender’s neglect of duty.

According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff consistently asserted from the time of detection that “the customers who visited several times before the discovery and who had been engaged in multiple inspections on identification cards did not inspect the same on the date of detection,” and ② the juveniles who seem to have visited the instant business establishment at the time were “the Plaintiff’s identification card inspection.”