1. The Defendant shall revoke the disposition of suspension of business for one month against the Plaintiff on December 6, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the name of “C” in Busan Dong-gu, Busan. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the instant restaurant and was discovered to the police.

B. Accordingly, on December 6, 2016, the Defendant applied Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition of business suspension for two months.

C. On January 24, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the business suspension of two months as one-month business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was reduced on December 6, 2016 by a ruling on administrative appeal, to suspend business operations for a month following the ruling on administrative appeal (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition”), the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s 3, 4, 6, 10, and Eul’s 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s employee D confirmed the identification card to juveniles of the instant restaurant at the time, but the card was forged or altered and offered alcoholic beverages by presenting other person’s identification card. Thus, there are justifiable grounds not to charge the Plaintiff’s duty. (2) In the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff thoroughly conducted the Plaintiff’s identification card inspection while operating the instant restaurant. In the instant case, there are justifiable grounds not to charge the Plaintiff’s duty of care. In view of the fact that the instant restaurant is the only means of living for the Plaintiff’s family members and the Plaintiff’s economic situation is difficult, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretionary power as excessive sanctions.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. (B) On July 29, 2016, around 20:30 on July 29, 2016, E and F ordered the instant restaurant to have one disease, etc. of a week in the instant restaurant, and thereafter two persons, who are relatives, tried to join the said restaurant.