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 operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Mapo-gu Seoul and 116.

B. On November 1, 2014, around 21:30, the Plaintiff was found to have sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the instant restaurant, and the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution against the Plaintiff on November 26, 2014.

C. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a two-month advance notice of the disposition of business suspension and an opportunity to present opinions. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a prior notice of the disposition of business suspension and the Defendant’s prior notice of the disposition of business suspension.

On December 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the indictment against the Plaintiff, taking into account the disposition of suspending the indictment above, to reduce the business to one month, and to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 15.6 million in lieu thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul 1 through 4, 6 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is a juvenile, and that the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles, and that it is difficult to provide alcoholic beverages to juveniles, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.