1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, while operating a general restaurant in the name of “D” in Daegu Northern-gu C (hereinafter “instant establishment”), it was controlled as an act of providing alcoholic beverages to three juveniles, including E (Seoul and 17 years old), around January 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant act of violation”).

B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff completed a report on succession to the status of a business operator that he/she acquired the business of the instant establishment from B to the Defendant, and thereafter operates a general restaurant from that time after registering its business with the trade name “F” on March 11, 2014.

C. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant notified the Daegu Northern Police Station of the instant violation, and on June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff, the transferee of the instant establishment, issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act.

On July 28, 2014, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff, and rendered a ruling that the disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff was changed to one month of business suspension. Accordingly, on August 18, 2014, the Defendant made a disposition that changed the said disposition to one month of business suspension (from August 25, 2014 to September 23, 2014) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 1,7,8, and 10 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff did not know at all about the violation of this case at the time of the transfer of the business of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot impose sanctions against the plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 78 of the Food Sanitation Act, which is the protection provision for a bona fide transferee of business.

B) Even if the Plaintiff may impose sanctions, the former (the former employer B is a juvenile).