1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on September 15, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the general restaurant “C” (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) in the name of Goyang-si, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “C”) to its name.

B. On September 15, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension of one month on the ground that, around August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, an employee, provided alcoholic beverages to two customers at the instant business establishment on August 22, 2014, and provided alcoholic beverages to two customers, provided alcoholic beverages, and provided alcoholic beverages to other customers, and provided entertainment to customers.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1 to 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 to 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a business owner who is not an employee, and the plaintiff was seated for a short time by the invitation of customers, and he was immediately discharged from the bar, and he did not have a entertainment act.

B. Therefore, as evidence of the Plaintiff’s act of entertainment on the ground of the instant disposition, although there was a written request for an administrative disposition (Evidence No. 2) prepared by the head of Ilsan Police Station, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above evidence alone. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the above judgment was rendered not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s act of entertainment in a criminal trial for violating the Food Sanitation Act as to the Plaintiff’s act of entertainment on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s act of entertainment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s act of entertainment (Article 2015Da1287, 205No2513). Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground of the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.