2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the part concerning the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs could not comply with the corrective order because the location and area of the place of business violating the law were not specified.

However, the Plaintiffs can sufficiently verify the actual total floor area of each business place and the reported business area, and the order for correction only requires a report on the changed business area, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs cannot expect the performance of their obligations under the above corrective order on the ground that the location of the business place in excess of the corrective order was not specified.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

B. The plaintiffs, as shown in [Attachment 23] Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Ⅰ. The phrase “the same violation” under subparagraph 5 of the general standard refers to cases where the facts of the second violation are different from those of the first violation, and it cannot be deemed that the details of the first violation and the details of the second violation at the time of the second violation are the same. Even if not, in order to constitute a new violation rather than a new violation subject to the previous corrective order, the Defendant should not, at least, correct the violation even though the Defendant issued the second corrective order against the Plaintiffs.