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 operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was admitted to the police on the ground that the instant restaurant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2014.

C. On January 22, 2015, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing a penalty of KRW 8.4 million in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground that the instant restaurant provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 13 evidence, Eul 2, 4 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) that the son who was an adult son was claiming that the son was an adult but did not have an identification card, and thereafter another customer was present between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff did not have an intention to provide a juvenile alcoholic beverage, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages without knowledge as a juvenile and the circumstances leading up to the provision of alcoholic beverages, the Plaintiff was not in violation of other laws and regulations except this case, and was engaged in volunteer activities, and the Plaintiff was economically difficult, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

B. (1) The sanctions against the violation of the administrative laws and regulations regarding the first assertion are sanctions against the objective fact of violation of the administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, the actual actor is always a person.