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 (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Daejeon Pream-gu B.

B. On August 17, 2017, the chief of the Daejeon Pream Station discovered “Around June 30, 2017, the employees D of the restaurant of this case did not verify the age of juvenile E (Nam, 18 years old) and notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant restaurant sold alcoholic beverages without verifying the age of juvenile E (Nam, 18 years old).”

C. Prosecutors belonging to Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on August 30, 2017

As to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act of this case, the disposition of the plaintiff's spouse F, who is the actual operator of the restaurant of this case, was taken to the plaintiff's spouse F, and suspended indictment against D.

On November 22, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,700,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground that the instant restaurant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On January 29, 2018, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff. On January 29, 2018, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,700,000 in lieu of a business suspension period of KRW 7,80,000 in the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 20 days in lieu of a business suspension of

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 28, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's alleged employee D was the first day of the restaurant of this case on the date of the occurrence of the case, received thorough education from other employees on the duty to verify identification cards, provided alcoholic beverages without conducting an identification card inspection in trust of the words of the juvenile guest and the man-child who served with the juvenile (D). There were unavoidable circumstances in the course of providing alcoholic beverages to the juvenile, and the juvenile in question was the age near adult as the student in 199.