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”) in the name of “C” in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff was admitted to the police and received a summary order of KRW 500,000 from a fine for negligence on the grounds that the instant restaurant provided liquor to juveniles. The said order became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months against the Plaintiff on the grounds of providing juvenile alcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the ground that the said disposition is harsh and that the Plaintiff wishes to be subject to a penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business. On June 29, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on June 29, 2015 that “the disposition of two months of business suspension shall be changed to a disposition of penalty surcharge in lieu of the disposition of business suspension on the 10th day of a month,” and on July 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 14 million in lieu of the disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 4, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion had no intention to provide a juvenile alcoholic beverage to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have any history of violating other laws except the instant case, and that there is no economic difficulty, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshing to the Plaintiff.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual as well as the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition in question, the public interest to be achieved by the disposition in question, and all the relevant circumstances. In such cases, the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition in question