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

A. The Plaintiff is a general restaurant B located in Dong-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On April 20, 2015, at the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment against the suspected violation of the Juvenile Protection Act that “Around February 20, 2015, at the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff provided one illness, which is a drug harmful to juveniles, to juveniles D (born in 1997).”

C. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 13.2 million (=40,000 x 30 days) in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground that “the primary violation of the provision of alcoholic beverages by juveniles” against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission changed the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 13.2 million in lieu of one month of business suspension to the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 8.8 million in lieu of 20 days of business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【Disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 8,80,000,000 in lieu of the 20-day period of business suspension following a modified ruling” (which is the ground for recognition), the facts that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul 1, 11, and 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Among the four members of the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's four members of the plaintiff's four members of the day-to-day restaurant of this case, two persons, including juveniles, have entered the restaurant of this case, and two remaining persons including juveniles, including juveniles, have been able to sleep. Since four persons were acting as a relative, the plaintiff could not be easily recognized that one of the four members of the plaintiff's day-to-day juvenile was a juvenile.

In a strict manner, the plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to the whole of the day including majority, rather than providing alcoholic beverages to juveniles among four persons of the day.

In particular, the juvenile concerned has been under the control of police officers in a state of not drinking only.

The plaintiff did not have any past record of committing an illegal act, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment in the prosecution due to this case, and the relevant juvenile conducts the alcohol.