1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 23, 2014, the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to five juveniles aged 17 on November 23, 2014, when the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “C”) with the trade name “C” in Daegu Northern-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant business”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”) on the ground of the instant violation, pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, two months of business suspension (from January 6, 2015 to March 6, 2015) were imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. On February 23, 2015, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the instant disposition of business suspension to one month as business suspension.

C. Accordingly, on March 20, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of the period of the instant disposition to one month (from March 27, 2015 to April 25, 2015).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's employee at the time of the violation of this case did not confirm that the plaintiff's employee requested the above juvenile to present his identification card, but did not possess his identification card. The appearance of the above juvenile did not appear as a juvenile and provided alcoholic beverages to adults, and 2) If the disposition of this case is suspended, it would cause a big trouble in the operation of the business of this case, making it difficult for the family's livelihood difficult, and there was no record of regulating the same violation before the violation of this case, and it is against the depth. In light of the above, the disposition of this case was unlawful since it abused the plaintiff's discretionary power by excessively harshing the plaintiff

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) As to the violation of administrative laws and regulations.