1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant with the trade name of “C” in Busan Jin-gu, Busan.

B. On December 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for three months pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff, from the restaurant to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2016, provided each alcoholic beverage to three juveniles around 00:50, and around 19:40, September 17, 2016 to two juveniles.

C. On January 24, 2017, Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal. On January 24, 2017, the disposition of the suspension of business against the Plaintiff was deemed to be excessive and rendered a ruling to reduce the suspension of business by two months.

According to the above ruling, on February 9, 2017, the defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months to the plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including, if any, additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no prior to the Plaintiff’s offer of alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the Plaintiff had thoroughly supervised the access of ordinary juveniles, but on the day of detection, the juveniles came to mature, and the juveniles were informed of the fact that they did not conduct identification verification and provided alcoholic beverages without being informed of their identity to adults. If the Plaintiff’s family members and employees are suspended from the instant disposition, it would cause serious economic difficulties and threaten the livelihood of the Plaintiff’s family members and employees, the instant disposition is unlawful by excessively harshly harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing discretionary power.

B. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the ground for the disposition.