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 a person who operated a general restaurant in the name of “C” from November 201 to Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, and the first floor.

B. On December 24, 2017, the Plaintiff was punished on the grounds that he/she provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles (each of the 17 years of age at the time of the case) in the above restaurant, and was suspended from prosecution on January 26, 2018 by the Seoul East East District Prosecutors' Office Acting on Prosecutor of the Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office.

C. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,800,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, taking into account the fact that an administrative disposition was imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground of the provision of juvenile alcoholic beverages, but the suspension of indictment was imposed on the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission to the effect that the instant disposition is revoked, but was dismissed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on April 23, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-7 evidence and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of all the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion verified the identification card of H(17 years of age), a person who drinks alcohol at the time of the instant case, and H pretended to be an adult by presenting another person’s identification card, and confirmed the age through another person’s Facebook, and thus, the Plaintiff was aware that the remaining four persons were adults, and the Plaintiff experienced economic difficulties, the instant disposition was abused by exceeding the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power is the grounds for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the pertinent act of disposal, and all the circumstances pertaining thereto.