과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Under the circumstances leading to a disposition, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10.
The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”) in the name of “C” in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.
B. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,420,00 on the Plaintiff (Amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Articles 75 and 82 of the former Food Sanitation Act; Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1066, Feb. 19, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that two greenhouses (13m x 8m x 6m x 11m m x 11m) were installed in addition to the Plaintiff’s place of business reported by the Plaintiff, which is substituted for seven days of business suspension corresponding to the primary violation.
(hereinafter “First Disposition”). In addition, the Defendant immediately suspended such violation to the Plaintiff and ordered the Plaintiff to submit the result thereof by November 29, 2013 after removing the relevant facility.
C. However, on January 23, 2014, the Defendant still discovered that the Plaintiff did not report the change without permission by expanding the business area of the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant secondary violation”). On February 11, 2014, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 16,80,000 in lieu of the 15 days of business suspension corresponding to the secondary violation, by applying Articles 75 and 82 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11998, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter the same) against the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act.
(hereinafter referred to as “the second disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff appealed to the second disposition of this case and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 23, 2014.
2. The case.