1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff is operating a simple main store (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) with the trade name “C” in Busan Dong-gu, Busan.

B. At around 04:30 on August 22, 2014, police officers belonging to the Busan East Police Station discovered that they had access to the instant establishment and offered alcoholic beverages. On the same day, the head of the Busan East Police Station notified the Defendant of the violation of the laws and regulations by selling juvenile alcoholic beverages.

C. Accordingly, on November 24, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to suspend business operations for January 15th, 2014 pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the disposition of the business suspension on January 15, 201, and on January 21, 2015, the Busan Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that the disposition of the business suspension on January 15, 2015 against the Plaintiff is changed to the disposition of the business suspension of 15 days.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” which was reduced on November 24, 2014 by the administrative appeal ruling as of November 24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for recognition”)

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 5, the plaintiff filed an application to change the disposition of this case to the defendant on February 9, 2015, and the defendant issued a disposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 6,60,000 in lieu of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff on February 11, 2015. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff issued an order of business suspension against the plaintiff.