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 November 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) operated a general restaurant with the trade name “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); (b) sold alcoholic beverages to six juveniles aged 17 years old at around September 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant primary violation”); and (c) sold alcoholic beverages to four juveniles aged 17 years old at around 23:00 of the same month, even around 27:00 of the same month.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary violation”) on the ground of the instant secondary violation, pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, three months of business suspension (from November 20, 2014 to February 17, 2015) were imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. On December 29, 2014, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the period of business suspension from three months to fifteen days per month.

C. Accordingly, on January 23, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of the period of business suspension of the instant disposition from February 6, 2015 to March 22, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 to 9, 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 first violation of this case, the Plaintiff’s husband presented an identification card to all of the relevant juveniles and provided alcoholic beverages after confirming that they were adults. The said juveniles were ageed by other people’s identification card, and it was difficult for the said juveniles to know about the fact that they were minors. 2) At the time of the second violation of this case, at the time of the first violation of this case, the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to adults as the result of the first two male customers’ identification card verification, and later, the Plaintiff controlled the alcoholic beverages already provided after the two juveniles were joined, and thus, the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to minors.