The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the Plaintiff’s general restaurant business report (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Nam-gu, Busan (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff’s mother D actually operated the said restaurant since that time.

B. On May 18, 2020, the Busan Southern Police Station notified the Defendant of the detection of any violation of laws and regulations that “D around May 9, 2020, at around 01:42, the instant restaurant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles.”

(c)

On September 11, 2020, on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act on the prohibition of providing juveniles alcoholic beverages (hereinafter “instant violation”), the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff based on Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) D, the actual operator of the instant restaurant, completed a new sanitation education for the food service business operator prior to the opening of the instant restaurant, and completed the existing sanitation education for three hours once a year, and did not recognize the two punishment provisions for the act of providing juvenile alcoholic beverages and neglect to pay attention to it. The instant restaurant’s wall, alcoholic beverage cooling, etc. attached the notice of “Prohibition on the Sale of Youth Alcoholic Beverages” to the instant restaurant’s wall, alcoholic beverage cooling, etc., and complied with this.

(2) On April 20, 2020, a month prior to the date of the instant violation, three of the four juveniles, who received alcoholic beverages at the time of the instant violation, presented a cell phone photograph showing another person’s identification card to D and confirmed that D is an adult. On April 20, 2020, two of the above four juveniles were found to have worked together with other two other persons, and they fulfilled their duty of care to confirm their age.

Ultimately, the fact that the identification card was not confirmed at the time of the instant violation is on the day of the juvenile four persons.