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 operated a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C” in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “C”).

B. On June 16, 2015, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to two juveniles (hereinafter “juvenile of this case”) at the instant establishment around 03:39, May 17, 2015.

(hereinafter “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, an administrative disposition of business suspension was taken for two months.

C. On July 21, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. On July 21, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to revise the instant disposition of business suspension for 20 days.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was reduced on June 16, 2015 by the administrative appeal ruling as 20 days of business suspension by the administrative appeal ruling, (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the four juveniles’ first priority in the instant business establishment was confirmed to be not the juveniles, but later, the instant juveniles did not confirm their identification cards by acting as if the instant juveniles were four persons prior to the instant business establishment, and the instant disposition is likely to cause a serious trouble to the management of the instant business establishment, and thus the Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation procedure might be discontinued, and there is no record of regulating the same offense prior to the instant violation, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is against the Plaintiff’s abuse of discretionary power.

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

C. Whether the single punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms.