1. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (a) operated a general restaurant in the name of “D” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “D”.

B. Around 18:00 on February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor succeeded to the Defendant’s wife (hereinafter the Intervenor) was admitted to the police on the ground that the instant restaurant provided liquor to five juvenile E, etc., and the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution against the Intervenor on June 19, 2014.

C. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 24,600,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension on the ground of juvenile alcoholic beverage provision on July 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff closed the restaurant of this case, and the Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff’s status as the business operator on September 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 9, Eul 4, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Intervenor’s assertion 1) misunderstanding the facts against the Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of facts, and the Intervenor issued an order for skin and alcohol on the part of customers, among the restaurants in this case, when the Intervenor had engaged in ice-related services. The Intervenor confirmed one of the co-inheritors’s identification cards, but the remainder of his identification cards were not confirmed, and provided only to him with the belief that he would drink only only on the part of the verified person’s identification cards. At that time, the person who presented his identification cards was a juvenile F, but he presented his identification card to a pro-friendly adult G. After the Plaintiff returned to the restaurant in this case, he refused additional orders of the said customer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not provide alcohol to the Juvenile E (one of his son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s