1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff on April 9, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operates a general restaurant in the name of “C” in both weeks.

B. On April 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that Nonparty D, an employee of the Plaintiff, provided alcoholic beverages, such as 10 soldiers, without verifying the age of 8 juveniles in the restaurant on December 14, 2013, on the ground that Nonparty D, an employee of the Plaintiff, provided alcoholic beverages, such as 10 soldiers, in the restaurant.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 11, 2014.

This court recommended the plaintiff and the defendant to adjust the disposition of this case to 50 days of business suspension at least twice before the closing of argument. However, the first recommendation for mediation was expressed by both the plaintiff and the defendant as to the second recommendation, and the defendant as to the second recommendation for mediation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 3 through 5, Eul evidence 8, the whole purport of oral argument.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretion.

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to each of the above evidence, Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10, and Eul evidence No. 1.

① From April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff operated C and operated it lawfully without being punished for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

(2) Employees D shall commit an offense against which alcoholic beverages are offered to eight juveniles as a result of neglecting the procedures for identification at the time of the relevant case.

However, the plaintiff had emphasized that D should verify his identification card, and alcoholic beverages from D.