1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 8, 2014, the Defendant provided and sold alcoholic beverages to eight juveniles aged 18 on September 21, 2014, when the Plaintiff was operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant establishment”) in the name of “C” in the north-gu, Mapo-si, North Korea.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant violation”), on the ground that the instant disposition was imposed, pursuant to Articles 44, 75, and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a penalty surcharge of KRW 3.6 million in lieu of a business suspension period of one month (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, on January 26, 2015, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's type D, who actually operated the business of this case without the ground for disposition, was adult at the time of the control of this case, and was aware of the remaining one age and provided alcoholic beverages to one of the two juveniles first at the business of this case. After that, during the delivery of D, six juveniles were affiliated with the above business of this case, and the employees at the time were unable to verify the identification card. Accordingly, D did not verify the identification card for the first juveniles at the business of this case, and did not verify the identification card for the last juveniles, since it was the negligence of the plaintiff or D employees, the disposition of this case is unlawful. 2) Since it was a zero-year restaurant, and it is difficult for the plaintiff or D to maintain their livelihood on a daily basis, it is recognized that it is difficult for them to maintain their basic daily living, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize the cause of abuse of discretionary power.