2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is the intervenor of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

The Plaintiff operates a general restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and E is an employee in charge of the instant restaurant, such as ice, in the instant restaurant.

On July 11, 2018, the Seoul Gangnam Police Station discovered that, around 00:40 on July 11, 2018, E provided juvenile F (n, 17 years of age), G (n, 18 years of age) with an amount equivalent to KRW 56,00,00, such as cattle 3 disease, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”).

On January 11, 2019, the public prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition of “Suspension of Prosecution” on the ground that in relation to the Plaintiff’s responsibility not to properly supervise the instant violation on the ground that “the suspected facts are recognized, but the primary offense is the first offense, and there are circumstances to consider, such as ordering the inspection of identification after entrusting the management of the instant restaurant.”

On February 19, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation.

On the other hand, on April 1, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred 40% of the shares in the instant restaurant operation to the Intervenor B.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap's non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence 1, 3, 10, Eul's evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), 5-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff made every effort to confirm the identity card of the guest admitted to the restaurant of this case and not provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

In addition, E had confirmed that F was adult by means of F’s identification card, which visited the restaurant of this case before the instant violation, and showed a photograph of drinking alcohol in Fal clubs, etc. through Lone Starg, thereby having become aware of F as adult.

Therefore, E did not verify the F's identification card at the time of the instant violation.

In addition, F is accompanied by a mixed person to the restaurant in this case.