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 operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” in Daejeon Jung-gu.

B. On July 8, 2017, around 21:00, the Plaintiff’s children, who had aided the Plaintiff, provided 1 disease with 5 chrons, which is a juvenile harmful drug, without verifying the age by confirming the identification card to 3 persons, including D (17 years of age and female) who are juveniles, in the restaurant of this case. The Plaintiff was indicted as a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act and was sentenced to suspension of indictment on July 20, 2017 at the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office.

C. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,80,000 in lieu of 30 days of business suspension on the ground of Articles 75 and 82 of the Act, Article 53 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, on the ground that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with alcoholic beverages to juveniles in the instant restaurant, thereby violating Article 44(2) of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, the said claim was dismissed on October 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering that the Plaintiff’s main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s children were able to help the Plaintiff and provided alcohol without knowledge of the juvenile body, that the Plaintiff provided education to his employees thoroughly, that the instant case was suspended from prosecution, and that the Plaintiff’s living is difficult due to economic depression, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby abusing and abusing the discretion.

B. Whether the decision-making administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under social norms.