1. The defendant revokes the disposition of suspension of business for two months as against the plaintiff on January 11, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incurred by the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff (the plaintiff's successor's withdrawal from the lawsuit of this case following the participation of the plaintiff) operated an entertainment drinking house (the main place of this case) under the trade name "D" in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

B. At around 04:50 on August 29, 2015, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, an employee of the Plaintiff, (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, but was found to have been discovered by police. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months by applying Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On March 4, 2016, an intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff’s business operator status.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6 (including additional numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. 1) The Intervenor’s assertion that he/she should not provide juvenile alcoholic beverages under the Food Sanitation Act is a food service business operator. In this case, the Plaintiff’s employee, who is not a food service business operator, provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles. As such, the instant disposition is deemed a ground for another person’s act and thus contravenes the principle of rule of law and the principle of responsibility. Therefore, there is no ground for the instant disposition. 2) Even if the ground for the instant disposition exists, the instant disposition was excessively excessive sanction and abused discretion.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law regarding the non-existence of the grounds for disposition 1 is a sanction against the objective fact of the violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Therefore, it is not always a real offender but a person stipulated by the law as the person in charge of the law, and there is a justifiable reason that does not cause any negligence on the duty of the violator.