The successor's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

A. C operated a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter “E”) with the name of “E” on the Daejeon P or the first floor.

B. On September 9, 2019, the chief of the Daejeon Pream Station notified the Defendant of the result of the instant disposition that “On August 19, 2019, the employees of the restaurant of this case believed that the restaurant of this case is identical to four adult adult members who had already verified the identification card, and subsequently sold the 1st soldier and 1st soldier of Macju without confirming the identity of two juveniles who later joined the restaurant of this case (hereinafter “instant violation”), and after investigating into the instant violation of the Juvenile Protection Act as the suspicion of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, the employees were to be prosecuted, and C sent to the prosecution with non-prosecution opinion.”

C. On September 17, 2019, the Prosecutor of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution against the employee, and issued a disposition of non-guilty suspicion against C.

On September 27, 2019, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 26,400,000 (in lieu of a business suspension of one month) on the employees’ instant violation.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

C filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 23, 2019.

F. On October 4, 2019, the Plaintiff (i.e., withdrawal; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) acquired the instant restaurant’s business license from C and succeeded to the status of the proprietor.

G. On March 2, 2020, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Successor”) acquired the business rights of the instant restaurant from the Plaintiff and succeeded to the status of the proprietor on March 2, 2020 while the instant lawsuit is pending.

H. On March 3, 2020, the succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention in the succession of the instant lawsuit. On March 6, 2020, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant consented to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is legitimate; and