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 operated a general restaurant in the name of "C" in the name of "C". On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles on or around 17:00 to 18:00 on November 27, 2015, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the prosecution, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of 9,30,000 on February 3, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment under Articles 75 and 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that he was the Plaintiff’s act of providing juvenile alcoholic beverages, as a substitute for the penalty surcharge, according to the Plaintiff’s opinion, the Plaintiff

B. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the said penalty surcharge within the given period, the Defendant changed the imposition of the said penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on March 10, 2016 to the disposition of business suspension for one month.

C. On May 11, 2016, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal, and decided that the disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016 should be changed to the disposition of business suspension 15 days.

On May 23, 2016, the Defendant changed the period of business suspension to 15 days (hereinafter the instant disposition) by reducing the period of business suspension against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was not less than 19 days since the plaintiff accepted the restaurant of this case and not more than 19 days, and most of the factory officers and employees were customers, and it was difficult to identify minors since many customers were able to enter a congested. Due to the characteristics of the construction area where the restaurant of this case is located, since the plaintiff's officers and employees of the factory of this case are responsible for the invasion, occupation, and suppering, the plaintiff's family members and employees are at the risk of closing a door even if a door is closed, and accordingly, the plaintiff's family members and employees are under threat of their livelihood.