1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending business against the Plaintiff on July 18, 2018 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates an entertainment tavern with the trade name “D” in Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul and 1st basement C (hereinafter “instant entertainment tavern”). E, her husband, is the actual operator of the instant entertainment tavern.

B. On December 3, 2017, at around 06:00, the Plaintiff, at the instant entertainment drinking house, controlled the charge that the Plaintiff provided juvenile F, G, and H (madududu 2000 students) with alcohol harmful to juveniles. On July 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension six days (from August 5, 2018 to August 10, 2018) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcohol to juveniles pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) established an “I”, which is the ordinary identification card inspection machine, to verify thoroughly whether the Plaintiff was a juvenile through comparison with the customer’s identification card, and ordered the employees to verify the customer’s identification card. At the time of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s employee J and K verified the juvenile’s identification card on the ground that the Plaintiff’s identification card was inevitable due to the malfunction of the identification card, and the juveniles were provided with others or forged identification card, and thus, the juveniles were to mislead and provide alcohol to adults. Considering these circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful, since there was a justifiable reason that could not cause the Plaintiff’s negligence in the Plaintiff’s duty of neglecting to provide alcohol to juveniles, even if the Plaintiff was engaged in the Plaintiff’s offer of alcoholic beverages, the Plaintiff did not have the same legal history as the Plaintiff did, and the economic losses that the Plaintiff would incur due to the instant disposition, etc. are very significant.