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 February 13, 2007, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant in Daegu as “C” in the name of “C.” On October 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act on December 6, 2016 and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with an amount equivalent to 35,00 won of the market price, such as the Plaintiff’s 2 and 35,000 square meters for a small week without verifying the identification card to two juveniles.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On January 31, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission) filed an administrative appeal, and rendered a decision to suspend business operations for the Plaintiff on a 20-day disposition of suspension of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) although the Plaintiff ordered an employee to verify his/her identification card; (b) the said employee was unable to conduct an examination of his/her identification card after having been confirmed only with maturity by the said employee; and (c) the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is threatened by serious economic difficulties if the Plaintiff’s business was suspended due to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is deemed to have

B. In light of the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances revealed, namely, the Plaintiff and the employees failed to examine identification card against the instant juveniles. Thus, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into the violation of the duty to protect juveniles, and the public interest to protect the juveniles from the harmful environment so that the juveniles can grow up as sound character.