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 18, 2013, the Plaintiff has operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Daegu Suwon-gu B.

B. On March 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of business suspension for one month against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 75 and 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act on April 26, 2017 and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided five juveniles (17 years of age; hereinafter “instant juveniles”) with an amount equivalent to KRW 41,00,000, such as 3 Madju and 1 disease and saluplicing.

C. On June 26, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff, and rendered a ruling to reduce the penalty surcharge in lieu of the 20-day suspension of business by deeming that the one-month suspension of business against the Plaintiff was excessive.

In accordance with the above judgment on July 28, 2017, the defendant changed the disposition of suspension of business against the plaintiff on July 28, 2017 into the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 9.4 million in lieu of 20 days of

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] A; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 12; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 9; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant calculated the penalty surcharge on the basis of the sales amount in 2016 at the time of the instant disposition, but the sales amount was sharply higher than that of the year, and thus, the method of calculating the penalty surcharge was erroneous. 2) The Plaintiff’s identification card was confirmed for ordinary juveniles, but at the time, the Plaintiff did not conduct an identification card because the instant juveniles were aware of the out-to-face adult identity at the time, and the instant juveniles did not have the same type of violation until now, and if the penalty surcharge is imposed as is, the Plaintiff’s family’s livelihood is threatened, the instant disposition was abused the discretionary authority.

B. Determination on the first argument.