2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs operate general restaurants in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gdong (hereinafter referred to as "Gdong") as shown below:

On September 6, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the trade name at the seat of the Plaintiff’s business report date, A. 1 A. H I 49.5 B B B B B 49.3 C on March 17, 2005, and on July 18, 2008, LM 38.75 D D 4 D on May 30, 2000, on March 15, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiffs on May 7, 201, on the ground that “the business size was larger than the reported business size)” by the Plaintiffs on May 11, 201, on the ground that “the business size was not changed and reported (the reported business size was larger than the reported business size)” under Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act.

The plaintiffs appealed against the above disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission decided August 22, 2016 that "it shall be changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the 7th business suspension disposition against the plaintiffs as the 3th business suspension disposition."

On October 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge (the same as the amount stated in the purport of the claim) in lieu of the suspension of business on the Plaintiffs on October 10, 2016.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each disposition of this case is legitimate, and each disposition of this case was taken on April 4, 2016, which was changed by the imposition of a penalty surcharge. (3) 【Disposition of Suspension of Business on April 4, 2016’s Each disposition of this case’s grounds for recognition’s grounds for recognition’s absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), and the entire purport of each disposition of this case’s assertion as to the legitimacy of each disposition of this case’s Each disposition of this case’s case’s each disposition of this case, the defendant did not specifically inform the plaintiffs of the location, the modified area, the modified area, and the time when the area of the business site was changed, and only “not changing the area of the business site and making a report of modification.” This is against Article 21(1) and Article 23(1)