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 September 12, 2014, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to six juveniles of the age of 16 on July 27, 2014, when the Plaintiff operated a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter “C”) with the trade name “C” in Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant business”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”) on the ground of the instant violation, pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, two months of business suspension (from September 26, 2014 to November 24, 2014) were imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. On October 27, 2014, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the instant disposition of business suspension to one month as business suspension.

C. Accordingly, on November 21, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of the period of the instant disposition to one month (from November 25, 2014 to December 24, 2014).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant violation, the Plaintiff had conducted an identification card inspection for one of the above juveniles, and had been adult age, and had many of the customers responded to other customers, and had no intention, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any intention to control the police before completing an identification card inspection. As long as the Plaintiff provided education to ordinary employees on the prohibition of selling juveniles alcoholic beverages from time to time, there is justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not cause any negligence on the Plaintiff’s duty to provide juvenile alcoholic beverages. (ii) The Plaintiff was under the control of the instant violation because it was not much much time for the Plaintiff to provide large loans to his family members for their livelihood during the ambomet, and if his business is suspended due to the instant disposition, it would seriously interfere with the operation of the said business.