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 October 2010, the Plaintiff operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C” in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu.

B. Around May 24, 2015, around 01:04, the Plaintiff’s employees D provided alcoholic beverages to four drivers, such as juvenile E, at the instant establishment. The Plaintiff’s employees controlled the police on the ground that they provided alcoholic beverages to four drivers, such as juvenile E.

(hereinafter, as seen above, the act of providing liquor to juveniles is deemed to constitute a violation of this case.

On June 17, 2015, the above employee was subject to the disposition of suspension of indictment in the case of violation of the Juvenile Protection Act by the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office.

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 26,400,000 in lieu of 30 days of business suspension on the ground of the instant violation.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”). (e)

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the initial disposition with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission accepted part of the plaintiff's assertion on September 21, 2015, and made an adjudication to change the original disposition to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the business suspension 15 days.

F. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant changed the first disposition to the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 13,200,000 in lieu of 15 days of business suspension pursuant to the above judgment.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case" means the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 13,200,000 in lieu of the 15th day of the business suspension that has been mitigated by an adjudication during the original disposition. [The grounds for recognition]] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 12 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) Employees D, who asserted the absence of the grounds for disposition, provided food and alcoholic beverages to three adult customers who frequently visit the business of this case, and juvenile E later joined the business of this case, and the above employees were the same from the beginning.