1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,900,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “E” on the first floor of the D building in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, with the trade name of “C” from the 1st floor of the D building in Dongdaemun-gu.

B. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s suspicion that he/she provided liquor to juvenile F in the instant restaurant was controlled by the police.

7. 14. The Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office was suspended from prosecution on behalf of the Prosecutor;

C. On November 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,900,000 in lieu of the disposition of business suspension for one month, on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 7 through 10, 1, 2, Eul's 1 and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff, who did not have any ground for disposition, received an order of G and H from the restaurant of this case to offer two soldiers, etc., who were adults in the instant restaurant of this case, and, at the calculation unit, f, who f, f, who f, f, and H, f, who f, f, and f, f.

Since then, customers who have finished the calculation were identified as minors and the F was identified as police officials of the elderly.

In this situation, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles F, as long as the plaintiff did not confirm the F's identification card and did not bring any food to F.

(2) The deviation and abuse of discretionary authority of the Plaintiff differs from her husband, and the Plaintiff borrowed one column next to the restaurant of this case without a residential address and operates and lives the restaurant of this case solely, and the Plaintiff’s health status is not good, and the Plaintiff has a debt against dumnas and the Plaintiff.