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 is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On February 21, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months 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 Defendant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles from the restaurant in this case on December 22, 2013, and then changed the said disposition to one month of business suspension on May 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was made by juveniles D et al. in the cooling house without the permission of E, and thus, the Plaintiff did not provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the instant restaurant operated by the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff was found to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles, the Plaintiff provided thorough education on identification cards to ordinary employees. The Plaintiff was operating the instant restaurant for not less than 10 years, and the Plaintiff was operating the instant restaurant. Considering that the instant disposition did not violate relevant Acts and subordinate statutes before the instant case was rendered, the Plaintiff’s economic situation is difficult, and the instant disposition is a great threat to the livelihood of the family members, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. (1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 1-2, No. 7-1, No. 7-6 of the evidence No. 1-2, and the entire purport of the pleadings, the process of being investigated by entering into the facts suspected of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, in which E, who worked as an employee at the instant restaurant, sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles, such as D, around December 22, 2013.