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

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff reported a general restaurant business with the size of 125.08 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and its trade name C, the place of business, and operated the relevant restaurant from that time.

B. As a result of the inspection of the Plaintiff’s place of business, the Defendant issued a corrective order on February 11, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s actual place of business was found to have exceeded the originally reported place of business, and that “the Plaintiff did not change the place of business and did not report the change” pursuant to Articles 75(1) and 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 26 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act.

C. On July 27, 2016, the Defendant inspected the size of the Plaintiff’s place of business again, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiff is running the same as the previous business without complying with the corrective order, and on August 23, 2016, ordered the Plaintiff to suspend its business for the same reason pursuant to the same provision.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the seven days of business suspension, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission decided October 10, 2016 that "the seven days of business suspension against the plaintiff shall be changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the three days of business suspension."

E. On November 9, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,410,000 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1 The first argument is that Article 21(1) and Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is not applied to the disposition of this case without the prior notice procedure, and the defendant fails to present the facts, contents, and grounds for the disposition.