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 running the business of general restaurant B located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.

B. On November 19, 2014, the chief of the Yanananannam Police Station notified the Defendant of the result of the instant treatment to the effect that “The Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverage and internal share equivalent to KRW 45,800 to a juvenile D, who was found to be a customer from the Plaintiff at around 00:30 on November 8, 2014, to a juvenile and one other, who was found to be a customer from C. The result of handling: the transfer of the prosecution opinion of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office.”

C. On December 1, 2014, the public prosecutor belonging to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution on the alleged violation of the Juvenile Protection Act against the Plaintiff.

On January 2, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on the basis of the Food Sanitation Act (from January 12 to February 10, 2015).

E. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of the execution of one-month business suspension until the time when the written ruling is served.

F. On February 24, 2015, the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that “a business suspension of one month against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2015 shall be changed to 20 days.” The ruling was served on the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015.”

G. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015 that “The execution period of the disposition of business suspension changed to 20 days” was “from March 6 to March 25, 2015.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was amended by the Defendant on January 2, 2015 following the ruling, was 20 days business suspension disposition of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the entries in Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On November 8, 2014, at around 00:15, the Plaintiff’s assertion that six women (one male gender four, two women) were in a place of business, and that two women do not have identification cards, and that only drinking and drinking water will be drinking, the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to four men confirmed as adults.

up to the commitment that two women will drink drinking water.