1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The details of the disposition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff operates the general restaurant located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”; (b) the Plaintiff’s mother D provided and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the above restaurant on November 30, 2013; and (c) the Defendant issued a two-month disposition of business suspension on April 30, 2014 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of business suspension on August 18, 2014 by the Seoul Metropolitan Government ruling of the Administrative Appeals Commission (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and the fact that the Plaintiff changed the disposition to the business suspension for one month on August 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) is either disputed between the parties

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) D sells alcoholic beverages to adults, and the relevant juveniles are only interested in drinking alcoholic beverages in the restaurant cooling house in the last time, so it cannot be deemed that they provided and sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles. Since D subsequently, it was controlled in the process of presenting a forged identification card from the above juveniles and demanding that they receive a false identification card, the grounds for disposition of the provision and sale of alcoholic beverages by juveniles themselves result from misunderstanding of facts.

(2) Considering the circumstances leading up to the provision and sale of alcoholic beverages to juveniles, the Plaintiff did not violate the same law and regulations, and the economic situation is difficult, the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion due to the Plaintiff’s excessive suspicion.

B. (1) Prior to the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, each of the evidence as seen earlier, added to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 12 (including each number), Eul evidence, and the entire purport of the argument, the Plaintiff’s maternity D provided liquor to juvenile E, etc. who was born in 1995, was admitted as a suspected crime of violating the Juvenile Protection Act, and at the time, the Plaintiff made a statement to an investigative agency on the purport that the two-storys were not confirmed due to the lack of a large number of customers and a lack of light condition. On February 6, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 50,000 from the Seoul Southern District Court.