1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month against the above restaurant (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles in Busan Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “C store”) around 02:00 on October 5, 2017.”

B. Accordingly, on November 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal and received a ruling to change the instant disposition from the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission to 20 days of business suspension.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff educated the ordinary employees not to provide alcoholic beverages to the juveniles. Since D, who was so on on the day of the instant case, was forced to provide alcoholic beverages by coercion upon demand for the provision of alcoholic beverages by force, the instant disposition taken against the Plaintiff, even though there was no intention or negligence on the provision of alcoholic beverages by the Plaintiff, was unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to verify the Plaintiff’s identity card when selling alcoholic beverages to ordinary employees, and the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff’s age to ordinary employees without experience at the time of the instant case. In addition, the Plaintiff respondeded to the Plaintiff as an adult, as well as the Plaintiff had already been under the influence of alcohol and provided alcoholic beverages with tobacco, it was unlawful in view of the Plaintiff’s burden of debt of KRW 610 million,000,000,000, as well as the Plaintiff’s business suspension, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case was subject to abuse of discretionary authority.