1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant with the trade name “C” in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu. On May 14, 2016, the Defendant issued two months of the suspension of business against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff provided six-person for a swine machine with one disease without verifying the identification card to seven juveniles on May 14, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On July 25, 2016, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission) filed an administrative appeal and rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension for one month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 14 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion had thoroughly verified the Plaintiff’s usual identification card, but on the same day, the day was insufficient to inspect the Plaintiff’s identification card, and the juveniles were deemed to have intentionally reported to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business. In light of the fact that if the Plaintiff’s business was discontinued due to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s economic difficulties are faced and the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is threatened, the instant disposition is deemed to have been excessively harshly abused and abused its discretionary power.

B. In light of the above-mentioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff failed to inspect the identification card against the instant juveniles, and it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have any justifiable ground to believe that there was a violation of the duty to protect juveniles, and by protecting the juveniles from a harmful environment, the Plaintiff should foster them so that they can grow as healthy personality bodies.