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 operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and the first floor.

B. On April 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for three months to the Plaintiff, on September 9, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff offered liquor to juveniles around 03:0 (1) and around 22:55 (2) on December 27, 2016.

C. On May 29, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made an administrative appeal against the above disposition. On May 29, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made an adjudication to change the above disposition to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of two months

Accordingly, on July 13, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,80,000 in lieu of 60 days of business suspension on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have been controlled by the offer of juvenile alcoholic beverages since the commencement of the instant restaurant business; (b) the Plaintiff’s 112 declaration that juveniles want not to pay the value of food was regulating; and (c) the amount of the penalty surcharge is too large; and (d) the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the internal business rules of the administrative agency, and there is no effect to guarantee