1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of recognition and disposition;

A. On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government after completing a business report and business registration for food service business (type of business: general restaurant) from the Defendant.

B. At around November 25, 2013, D, an employee of the instant restaurant, sold a string without verifying the identification card to juvenile E (FF students) in the instant restaurant on November 25, 2013.

D was ordered to suspend indictment from the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on February 26, 2014 on the ground of the facts charged.

C. Thereafter, around 05:00 on December 14, 2013, G, an employee of the instant restaurant, sold the small group of three bottles, without verifying the identification card to two youth H(Is) in the instant restaurant.

G was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 won by the Seoul Northern District Court on July 4, 2014 on the grounds of the above criminal facts, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On October 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspending the instant restaurant business for three months (from November 6, 2014 to February 3, 2015) on the ground that the instant restaurant employees provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles twice.

After the aforementioned disposition, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the restaurant business of this case on March 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for two months (from March 24, 2015 to June 1, 2015) pursuant to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission’s ruling of modification.

【Grounds for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, No. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion provided employees with strict training that they would not sell alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the said employees were forced to provide alcoholic beverages because male customers, who had been under the influence of alcohol, did not think that they were juveniles.

In addition, D's violation.