1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff is running a general restaurant business in the trade name, called “C” (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On November 16, 2015, the head of Busan East Coast Guard notified the Defendant on November 16, 2015 that the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff’s act of providing four illnesss to juveniles at the instant establishment around November 15, 2015.

C. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the two-month prior notice of the disposition of the suspension of business, and notified the Plaintiff of the submission of his/her opinion by December 2, 2015. During the proceeding of the hearing, the Defendant was notified by the head of the Busan East Coast Guard that the Plaintiff provided six illnesss to juveniles around November 20, 2015.

Accordingly, on January 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition for the suspension of business for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Articles 44(2) and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant establishment twice as above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) at the time of the second violation of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff presented the identification card to juveniles at the time of the second violation of the instant disposition; (b) the details leading up to each of the instant offenses, including the Plaintiff’s presentation of the identification card to the Plaintiff and the provision of alcoholic beverages by mistake as adults; (c) the operation of the instant business was the sole means of livelihood of the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have any history of violating the same kind of rules, the instant disposition was deemed

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

C. The scope of discretionary power is determined by social norms.