1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of “C” (hereinafter “instant main shop”).

B. On October 29, 2017, around 03:30 on October 29, 2017, D, the Plaintiff’s husband, controlled the police on the ground that he provided liquor to juveniles, thereby violating the Juvenile Protection Act. The Plaintiff was suspended from indictment on January 24, 2018.

C. On February 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation; (b) rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month in relation to the instant main points (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, and received a ruling to change the period of business suspension from the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission to 15 days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s assertion 1) received an order from two adults, who are adults, at the time of the instant case, to provide alcohol and alcohol, and provide them with alcohol and alcohol. Subsequent to the instant disposition, as the juveniles enter the instant main point and drink together with the said customers, D did not provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles. Nevertheless, the instant disposition premised upon D’s provision of alcoholic beverages to juveniles was erroneous. 2) Even if D provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the time of the instant case, D did not provide alcoholic beverages despite being aware of the fact, D’s provision of alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and it is suspected that at the time of the instant case, customers were not to pay the alcohol value after drinking alcohol. The instant disposition was taken into account the fact that D’s offer of alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the time of the instant disposition.