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 a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the trade name of “C” in Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu B (1).

B. At around 23:00 on December 16, 2017, Nonparty D, an employee of the instant restaurant, sold alcoholic beverages to 9 juveniles (hereinafter “instant violation”). On January 18, 2018, the Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office indicted D with a fine of KRW 700,000,000, and on February 1, 2018, issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as the Cheongju District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 201Da368, March 15, 2018, the said summary order became final and conclusive on March 15, 2018.

C. On March 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission. On April 27, 2018, the said administrative appeals commission partially accepted the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal claim, and rendered a ruling that “The instant violation is recognized, but Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the degree of the violation may be mitigated within the scope of up to 1/2 of the period of the disposition of suspension if the violation is insignificant or minor negligence without intention is minor. Considering the economic situation of the Plaintiff, the instant violation was caused by minor negligence, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of suspension of business for two months is excessive and changed to one-month business suspension.”

E. According to the above ruling, on May 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to change the business suspension for one month against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter) As above, the disposition of business suspension as of March 13, 2018, which was changed to the disposition of business suspension for one month as of March 13, 2018, (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] did not dispute, (i) evidence A, and (ii) evidence B (1) through (3).