영업정지처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2016.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is as follows: (a) the “2013 year” of the first instance judgment No. 7 as “2014”; and (b) the “2014 year”; and (c) the “2013Du1560, Aug. 27, 2015” was added to the “201.” As such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) the same is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the other hand, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiff due to the occurrence of the validity of the disposition of this case, and there is no other data to recognize that the validity of the disposition of this case is likely to have a significant impact on public welfare. Thus, the validity of the disposition of this case is suspended ex officio
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.