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 person who operates a mutual general restaurant in Seongbuk-gu, “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On June 25, 2018, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office: (a) ordered the instant restaurant employee D on April 14, 2018; (b) around 03:00 to 06:30 on April 14, 2018, the prosecutor issued a disposition of suspending prosecution, taking into account the circumstances that D, while presenting another’s resident registration certificate in the instant restaurant, e (18 years old), F (18 years old), etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant minors”) presented another’s resident registration certificate in the instant restaurant, the prosecutor ordered the instant restaurant to suspend indictment, taking into account the circumstances that: (c) sold 4 soldiers who did not check and confirm their identity while having offered other’s resident registration certificate; (d) did not

On the other hand, the above prosecutor made a disposition against the plaintiff that "Although the plaintiff had a duty not to neglect due care and supervision concerning the relevant business in order to prevent an employee D from selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles, D did not prevent the act of selling alcoholic beverages to juveniles."

C. On July 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for one month on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to juveniles,” and accordingly, filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff.

On September 17, 2018, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on September 17, 2018 that "a disposition of the suspension of business operations for one month shall be changed to a disposition of penalty surcharge in lieu of six days of business suspension."

Accordingly, on October 11, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,340,000 in lieu of six days of business suspension on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was examined on the Plaintiff’s identification card against the instant minor at the time, but this was done.