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 general restaurant operator in the name of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”.

B. Around 01:30 on June 30, 2013, D, an employee of the Plaintiff, who was in charge of entertainment, was found to have sold alcoholic beverages without properly verifying the age to 5 juveniles.

(hereinafter “instant violation”). The prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the Seoul Western District Prosecutor’s Office”) committed a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act against D on October 29, 2013, but presented an identification card by three other persons (sex) who first entered among juveniles, and thereafter, two persons who later joined were the same as an adult’s behaviors or friendship, and were likely to be judged as an adult, the suspension of indictment was imposed in consideration of the circumstances.

C. On March 20, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 35,40,000,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension pursuant to Articles 82(1), 75(1)13, and 44(2)4 of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground of the instant violation (i.e., the daily penalty surcharge of KRW 1180,000,000,000,000,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension (i.e., the annual amount of penalty surcharge of KRW 1,637,264

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, and 3, and Eul 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At around 01:30 on the day of the Plaintiff’s assertion, at around 01:30 on the day of the instant case, three male customers were first ordered to order food and alcoholic beverages to verify the identification card to E, and as E requires them to present their identification card, all of these three persons presented their adult identification cards.

Accordingly, food and alcoholic beverages were provided, and thereafter, there was a disturbance among customers, and D reported to the police, and two persons, other than the above three persons, were in the combined state, and all of them were identified as juveniles.

D or E, who is an employee of the plaintiff, could not be known that three persons who were first engaged in the illegal exercise of another's identification card, and it was impossible to expect that two persons would be combined.