1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant limited to the plaintiff on March 6, 2018.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, Eul (the plaintiff's mother) is an entertainment drinking house business with the trade name "D" located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si. The defendant, on March 6, 2018, issued a "disposition of this case," which orders the suspension of business for two months pursuant to Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that "B provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles on February 21, 2017 from the above entertainment drinking house."

The first sentence of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation suit may be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc." In principle, an administrative litigation shall not be brought by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc., and, in principle, has no interest in filing a suit only with a person who has a legal direct and specific interest

(2) In light of the legal principles as to the revocation of the disposition of this case, the defendant's disposition of this case against B is merely a disposition of this case against the plaintiff, not a disposition of this case against the plaintiff, and even if the actual operator of the above entertainment drinking house is not the plaintiff B but the actual operator of the above entertainment drinking house, or the person who actually provided a juvenile alcoholic beverage, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff, not the other party to the disposition, has a legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by a non-qualified person.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed.