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 a person who operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.

B. On June 10, 2019, around 23:45, the Plaintiff was exposed to the police due to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act on the ground that the restaurant in this case sold liquor to juveniles D.

(hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverage sales”). C.

On October 22, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the above detection by the Incheon Western Police Station, which was subject to the disposition of suspension of business for two months as a violation of the “Provision of Youth Alcoholic Beverages (1j)” to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) d.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on December 23, 2019, and rendered a ruling that “the two-month disposition of business suspension is changed to one-month disposition of business suspension.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that prior to the instant liquor sales, the Plaintiff confirmed the identity card of D and confirmed that he was a juvenile in 200, and sold the novels without verifying his identification card as it was impossible to think that he was a juvenile in terms of his clothes, tea, and dialogue.

D was not opened at the time of crackdown on the sales of alcoholic beverages in this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case was erroneous as the premise facts, and it was unlawful since it exceeded or abused discretionary power.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. First, we examine the assertion that there is a mistake in the premise facts.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is the purport that D was unaware of the Plaintiff as a juvenile by forging, altering, and stealing his/her identification card in 2000. According to the proviso of Article 75(1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 52(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, the Plaintiff in such cases.