1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff runs a general restaurant business in the trade name of “C” in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months (hereinafter “the initial disposition”) by applying Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant establishment on December 1, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the initial disposition, and on February 23, 2016, the Busan Metropolitan Administrative Appeals Commission rendered an adjudication that changed the initial disposition to 20 days of business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” that was reduced on January 22, 2016 by the said administrative appeal ruling as 20 days of business suspension by the said administrative appeal ruling (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【The grounds for recognition”), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 9-2, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that it is extremely difficult for an adult 1 and a juvenile 1 to view juveniles to drink alcohol in the situation where the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by entering the restaurant and one adult 1,000, and the instant business establishment is a small small-scale business establishment that actually operates D, the Plaintiff’s two-years of the Plaintiff. When the instant disposition is maintained, their livelihood was prevented, and D was punished for a minor fine of KRW 300,000 due to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was an abuse of discretionary power, because it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is relevant to the violation as a ground for the disposition.