1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. From August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff is a business operator who operates general restaurants (hereinafter “instant establishments”) in the trade name of “C” in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju.

B. At around 01:00 on March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to juveniles at the instant establishment, and was discovered by the police.

C. The case of the above detection led to the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act by E, who managed the instant business establishment on behalf of the employees D and the Plaintiff, and the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition of suspension of indictment against D on April 30, 2018, and a disposition of non-guilty (defluence of evidence) against E.

On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff requested a request to impose penalty surcharges in lieu of the suspension of business. On May 10, 2018, the Defendant imposed penalty surcharges of KRW 28,200,000 in lieu of the suspension of business.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists in the ground for recognition, Gap's 1 to 3, Eul's 1 to 10 certificates (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant issued the instant disposition based on the prosecution’s suspension of indictment against D, but D demanded a juvenile FF et al., who entered the instant shop on the day of the instant case to present an identification card and confirmed that he/she was adult and sold alcoholic beverages through his/her identification card.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. According to the records in Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the juvenile F stated that he was at the time of entering the business of this case on the day of the instant case, and that he was at the time of ordering alcoholic beverages, and that EDoD did not conduct an identification card inspection on the day of the instant case. However, E did not conduct an identification card inspection on the day of the instant case because he was aware that he was an adult by conducting an identification card inspection before D, and thus, he did not conduct an identification card inspection on the day of the instant case.