1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of business suspension for two months from the Defendant (from October 10, 2017 to December 8, 2017) from September 12, 2017, as a person who operates a general restaurant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, with the trade name of “C”, and was subject to a disposition of business suspension from the Defendant (from October 10, 2017 to December 8, 2017).

B. On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and rendered a judgment on November 27, 2017 that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission’s initial disposition of business suspension for the two-month period of business suspension should be changed by one month of business suspension.

C. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business from December 29, 2017 to February 6, 2018 (this case’s disposition is committed under the following) with the period of suspension of business from December 29, 2017 to February 6, 2018.

On January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant’s instant disposition, and the instant court collected the opinions of the parties, and recommended the Defendant to re-disposition the instant disposition by changing the instant disposition to a disposition of KRW 20 days of business suspension and penalty surcharge of KRW 20 million. However, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the recommendation of mediation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 15, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), Gap's testimony, fact inquiry and reply to the chief of the police station of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on the day of the instant case, the Plaintiff was in a state of fluoring the Plaintiff, and the young 4 young son, who had been fluored, demanded to provide alcoholic beverages along with food, and even though D demanded to present his/her identification card, it seems that D would be able to do so if he/she did not do so.