1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is the representative of the general restaurant “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

The Plaintiff’s mother D sold liquors to E (18 years old), F (17 years old), and G (18 years old) at the instant restaurant around November 7, 2015, while running the instant restaurant business on behalf of the Plaintiff, around November 22, 2015.

Accordingly, on December 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the suspension of business against the Plaintiff for one month (from January 30 to February 28, 2016).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 8, Eul’s evidence 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) On the day of the instant violation, the said three juveniles demanded the presentation of identification cards to the said three juveniles on the day of the said violation, and as such, there exist justifiable grounds that do not cause any negligence of neglecting the duty. 2) Considering the fact that the said three juveniles present the identification card that is formally forged, the Plaintiff did not have the same history, and that D was subject to the suspension of indictment for the said violation, and that the economic situation of the Plaintiff’s family is difficult, the instant disposition is an abuse of discretion contrary to the principle of proportionality.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as a circumstance that the violator does not have knowledge of his/her duty, or a circumstance where the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to be anticipated, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du15139, Apr. 9, 2015; 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012). The evidence Nos. 4-7, 9-12 (including the serial number) alone at the time of the said violation.