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 in the trade name of “C” (hereinafter “C”) in Busan.

B. On November 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to three juveniles at the instant restaurant on October 15, 2016.

C. On December 27, 2016, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal. On December 27, 2016, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension by 40 days.

On January 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for 40 days to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (including additional numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the restaurant of this case was operated by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s business was not a juvenile through the resident registration certificate inspection, and the Plaintiff’s first customer two customers, who were not a juvenile at the time, were provided alcoholic beverages, and later, the two juveniles, who were affiliated with these juveniles, did not verify their identification cards separately. The above juveniles were likely to deceive D to pay food at the time, with a significant amount of criminal records and to not pay food at the time, without the same kind of violation power, and with the Plaintiff’s economic loss due to the instant disposition, etc., the instant disposition was deemed to be unlawful as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power by excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is determined by the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition and the relevant disposition.