1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “Catin” in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

B. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition for the suspension of business operations for two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles D (15 years of age) and six (6) persons at the instant establishment around 00:00 on February 13, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s wife and the Plaintiff’s employees provided a beer and beer, after having presented their resident registration certificates from all customers twice to verify that they are adult, and comparing their face with each other, and subsequently, the customer who does not have identification card was provided with a beer and can be seen as having been subject to business operators’ obligations. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff’s economic situation, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing discretion.

B. Since a punitive administrative disposition is a sanction based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, in principle, it does not require the offender’s intentional negligence, but is not subject to any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason that does not cause the offender’s neglect of duty.

According to the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and Nos. 10, the Plaintiff consistently asserted that “I provided alcoholic beverages after examining identification cards and comparing face.”