1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which allowed the revocation of business permission, against the plaintiff's employment of juveniles as entertainment reception workers without confirming the identification card only once, is unlawful since it exceeded discretionary power.

However, considering the possibility of judicial review of discretionary action based on the discretion of the administrative agency, the court will only examine whether the act in question is abused or abused from discretion without drawing an independent conclusion, and the examination of whether the act in question is abused or abused from discretion is subject to such judgment, such as misunderstanding of facts and violation of the principle of proportionality.

In addition, the fact that the administrative disposition by discretionary action exceeds the limits of the discretionary authority and thus is illegal does not need to be asserted by the person who asserts the validity of the administrative disposition and prove that the disposition is legitimate.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Nu861 delivered on December 8, 1987, etc.). Various circumstances properly explained in the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Ⅱ In light of the fact that Article 3(3)11(a) of the individual criteria provides that even in the case of a primary violation, “in the case of having a juvenile provide entertainment services by employing him as an entertainment service provider,” the revocation of the business license or the closure of the place of business shall be revoked, and the instant disposition was taken in compliance with the aforementioned sanctions standards, the instant disposition alone is erroneous of facts or proportional equality, as alleged by the Plaintiff.