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 August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant in the trade name “C” in Daegu Suwon-gu B.

B. Around 03:30 on August 11, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 5, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff provided one juvenile (18 years of age) with an amount equivalent to KRW 26,000, such as 13 illness, etc.

C. On October 30, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal. On October 30, 2017, the two-month disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff was deemed to be excessive and rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension by 20 days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 9 (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 1) On the day of the instant case where there is no ground for disposition, the Plaintiff’s employee entered a total of nine persons including an adult guest who confirmed his identity card before the instant case, and provided alcoholic beverages to all of his relatives with the knowledge of adult age. Among them, one juvenile was included in the Plaintiff’s employee as her friendship. At the time, the Plaintiff’s employee introduced the Plaintiff’s employee as her own friendship. The Plaintiff’s employee did not have any intention to offer alcoholic beverages to the juvenile. (ii) The Plaintiff’s employee was divided in depth into the instant case; (iii) the circumstances leading up to the abuse of discretionary power; (iv) the Plaintiff’s violation occurred in depth; and (v) the discontinuance of the business by the instant disposition, the family’s livelihood is difficult; and (v) the Plaintiff’s employee was indicted at the prosecution on the case of violating the Juvenile Protection Act with the same content as the instant disposition, and thus,

B. 1) Determination of the absence of grounds for disposition is based on the violation of administrative law.