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 general restaurant in the trade name of “C” in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On October 25, 2017, the employee D of the instant restaurant was suspended from indictment on the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, which stated that “from the instant restaurant to the juvenile E (n, e.g., female, 17 years old) sold liquor around 05:00 on October 6, 2017.”

C. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month on the ground that the instant restaurant provided liquor to juveniles to the Plaintiff.

On December 26, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff. On December 26, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension of the Plaintiff as a penalty surcharge in lieu of 20 days of business suspension.

E. On January 16, 2018, the Defendant changed the disposition of business suspension of the Plaintiff on January 16, 2018 to the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 23.6 million in lieu of 20 days of business suspension.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and Eul's Evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant applied class 18 (1.80,000 won a day) under Article 53 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act based on the total sales amount of KRW 1,740,375,463, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 23.6 million (1.180,000 won a day x 20 days). However, the instant disposition was issued on January 16, 2018, and the penalty surcharge should be calculated based on the total sales amount of year 2017, which was the year preceding the year in which the date of disposition falls. 2) Even if the basis for calculating the penalty surcharge imposed on the Plaintiff was the sales amount of year 2016, the sales amount was temporarily increased due to the F stores and G construction in 2016, and the sales amount decreased after this year.