1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 2017, while the Plaintiff operated “D” in Bupyeong-si C, the Plaintiff was found to have sold alcoholic beverages to three juveniles who were found to be customers on December 24, 2017 without verification of identification.

B. Accordingly, on March 5, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on two months (from March 16, 2018 to May 14, 2018). However, the Defendant was rendered a ruling that it is reasonable to change the previous disposition of business suspension from 60 days to 40 days on the ground of the difficulty in living on May 28, 2018 due to an administrative appeal filed by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 11, 2018, the Defendant once again issued a business suspension order against the Plaintiff on June 18, 2018, from June 18, 2018 to June 18.

7. 27. 27. hereinafter "the instant disposition"

A disposition of modification was made [the facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been thoroughly obligated to verify the identity of juveniles so that they do not provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the instant case did not reach the actual stage of drinking alcohol, and the relevant juveniles were unable to be perceived as juveniles in appearance, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and it has no effect to guarantee citizens or courts externally.