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 April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”) with the trade name “C” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul.

B. On June 29, 2013, around July 15, 2013, and around September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) had F (i) a juvenile, a juvenile, introduced by D, “D,” the owner of the instant entertainment drinking house, (ii) from G, one-day H, 17 years old), I (one-day J, 17 years old), and K (one-time L, and 16 years old), respectively, engaged the said customer to drink and dance together with the instant entertainment drinking house; (b) had the said customer be in a sexual intercourse with the said entertainment drinking house; and (c) had the customer engage in sexual intercourse from June 24, 2013 to September 16, 2013 to arrange sexual intercourse.

C. On December 15, 2015, the Defendant revoked a business license on January 13, 2016 pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff was engaged in entertainment business by employing juveniles entertainment workers, and provided brokerage services for sexual traffic.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for partial disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is a “D” employer, and the Plaintiff temporarily employed juvenile F, etc. as a entertainment entertainment worker. At the time, F, etc. was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was a juvenile.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s employees verified their identification cards at the time of the first entry into the instant entertainment drinking house, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to easily find out whether they were juveniles due to their forged identification cards or other personal identification cards under the direction of E, and thus, it cannot be attributable to the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty.