1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the name of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”.

On July 25, 2015, around 22:00, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to D (E) and seven (7) juveniles in the restaurant.

On September 23, 2015, the defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months against the plaintiff on the ground that the above juvenile alcoholic beverage was supplied.

(hereinafter “original disposition”). On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the original disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on December 21, 2015.

Accordingly, on February 25, 2016, the Defendant changed the period of business suspension of the original disposition against the Plaintiff from March 15, 2016 to May 13, 2016, thereby re-dispositioning the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that two of the above customers alleged by the plaintiff are able to see, have a strong physical strength, and have shown the age of appearance, and the plaintiff was not doubtful, six of the above customers was additionally included in a restaurant in which the plaintiff sleeps with other organizations, and the plaintiff was unable to see them, and the plaintiff's situation may not be caused by the plaintiff's business suspension for 2 months, etc., the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is too harsh to the plaintiff.

B. Sanction against violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed even without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as where the violator could reasonably indicate that he did not know his duty, or where the party cannot expect the fulfillment of his duty, etc.