1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension of business for one month shall be revoked on April 24, 2017.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant in the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Busan, the Plaintiff provided liquor to juveniles on March 17, 2017, but was exposed to the police.

B. On April 24, 2017, the Defendant applied Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff, thereby making a disposition of business suspension for one month.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed against the above disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s employee confirmed his identification card as to four women at the time of the instant restaurant, but the Plaintiff’s employee provided alcoholic beverages by presenting forged identification card and other people’s identification card. Thus, there are justifiable grounds for not misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s duty of care. 2) The Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant and there is no illegal act so far, and the Plaintiff did not provide alcoholic beverages by regulating ten minutes of alcoholic beverages at the time, and the instant restaurant is the only means of living of the Plaintiff’s family members. In light of the above, the instant disposition was excessively excessive sanction, and thus, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretionary power.

B. At the time of recognition 1), four juveniles visiting the restaurant of this case were 16 years of age or 17 years of age. Two of them presented other persons’ identification cards, one of them presented a photograph of identification card stored in a mobile phone, and the remaining one of them was prepared and submitted to each investigation agency a written statement to the effect that the Plaintiff did not inspect the identification card. (ii) The CCTV images taken at the time are presented.