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 March 2015, the Plaintiff is a person who operated a general restaurant (c) with the trade name “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

B. At around 01:00 on February 6, 2017, D, an employee of the Plaintiff, controlled that he/she provided alcoholic beverages to juvenile E at the above restaurant, and was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment on or around March 13, 2017.

C. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 28,200,000 in lieu of a disposition of business suspension for one month in consideration of the fact that an administrative disposition was taken on the ground of the provision of juvenile alcoholic beverages, but the suspension of indictment was imposed on D, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the case of the Plaintiff’s assertion-based restaurant, since the Plaintiff is engaged in the delivery-oriented business using 20 employees, the amount of personnel expenses among the sales is high, making profits to prepare for sales, and such circumstances are not reflected in the process of calculating the penalty surcharge, and the Plaintiff’s business and the Plaintiff’s employee’s living are likely to cause a big difficulty in the Plaintiff’s business and the employee’s livelihood, the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretionary authority or abuse discretionary authority.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1 as to whether an administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the ground for disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it shall be inside the administrative agency.