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”) with the trade name of “E” in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City building B, C, and D (126.67 square meters).

B. At around December 30, 2019, around 22:00, the Plaintiff’s employee F sold 2 soldiers a week 2 without verifying three identification cards, including juvenile G (17 years of age) and H (16 years of age) in the instant restaurant.

(hereinafter “instant violation”). C.

On February 3, 2020, the Defendant issued a notice of business suspension for two months, which included the result of the disposition of suspension of indictment from the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition of “one month of business suspension” against the Plaintiff on the ground of violation of Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal. On April 27, 2020, Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that “one-month disposition of business suspension shall be changed to the business suspension 15 days.” The Defendant notified the Plaintiff by reflecting the above ruling on May 7, 2020.

The disposition of February 3, 2020, which was mitigated to 15 days of business suspension, is "the disposition of this case".

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 1 to 4, 8, Eul's 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Juveniles provided as alcoholic beverages in violation of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 are the girs that were placed in the restaurant of this case 7 to 8 times from the beginning in 2019.

The plaintiff's employee F had already known that the above juveniles were adults when they first engaged in the restaurant of this case, but did not conduct an identification card inspection at the time of the violation of this case.

However, at the time of detection of police officers, the above juveniles suggested other people's identification cards.

Even if F initially inspected the identification card, it is clear that the above juveniles raised another person's identification card which was stolen.

The identification card of the juvenile is stolen.