1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While the Plaintiffs were operating a general restaurant in the name of “D” in the Seoul metropolitan area, the Plaintiffs received an order of KRW 15,000 (15,000,000,000 from a juvenile in the foregoing establishment around May 1, 2016, E, an employee, around 05:10, was placed on the order of KRW 15,00,00,00 from a juvenile in the foregoing establishment.

B. E is recognized as having violated the Juvenile Protection Act by selling liquor to juveniles, but it is also considered to have a mature and drunk entry of the mother of F, and on the ground that there was no previous conviction in the same kind of crime, the Plaintiff A was subject to the suspension of indictment on June 10, 2016 on the ground that he/she was found to have been negligent in guiding and supervising the Plaintiff, but he/she was found to have a substantial degree of it and that there was no previous conviction in the same kind of crime

C. Accordingly, on July 28, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 33,600,000 in lieu of the business suspension period of one month on the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). In light of the fact that the suspension of indictment was imposed, it is calculated for 30 days based on the daily penalty surcharge of KRW 1,120,000 equivalent to the daily penalty surcharge of KRW 1,317,924,682, which is the total sales amount in 2015 pursuant to Article 53 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but dismissed on October 28, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 4, Gap's evidence 5-1 to 6, Eul's evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiffs' assertion F was in the appearance and clothes of majority of age, and he was ordered to alcoholic beverages without any special doubt while under the influence of alcohol. However, F merely was wring off a customer who was seated on the side, but did not drink, and there was no fact that he received the drinking value from F, and thus, it was sent to police even without suspicion. However, the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiffs provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles should be revoked as unlawful.