1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

B. On March 22, 2015, around 05:30, D, an employee of the Plaintiff, provided alcoholic beverages to four juveniles, including E (17 years of age) at the instant restaurant, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”), but was discovered at the Suwon Police Station, and was subject to suspension of indictment at the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office on April 23, 2015.

C. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 23,400,000 on the Plaintiff in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground of the instant violation.

On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission. On September 11, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to change the imposition of the penalty surcharge, which was imposed on the Plaintiff, to the penalty surcharge in lieu of 15 days of business suspension.

E. Accordingly, on September 15, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,700,000 in lieu of the 15th day of business suspension on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [No dispute exists on the ground of recognition], entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 11, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 4, 6, 10 through 12 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's employee asserted 1 confirmed the identification card of two customers first entering the restaurant of this case and provided two soldiers with two soldiers a week after confirming that he/she is adult. At the last, four persons a single-class day together with the plaintiff could not be predicted that they would be a juvenile in appearance. Since then, the plaintiff's employee provided one disease a week additionally according to the order of one customer first entering the restaurant of this case.

As a result of the investigation conducted by the police station later, it was revealed that one of the first customers was a minor and used an adult identification card. The instant violation was caused by the deception of the juvenile customer.