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

A. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff is a food service business operator who registered the instant business with the trade name “D” on September 1, 2016, after acquiring a general restaurant located in Gangnam-gu and 1st underground floor (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on July 13, 2016, the transferor of the instant business installed sound and reflective facilities and allowed customers to singing.

(2) On the grounds of Article 36, 44, 75, and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act, a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 31,490,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was made in lieu of the suspension of business operations on the seven-month basis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 7-3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely reported that it was a formal transfer and acquisition of business, and cannot be deemed to have actually succeeded to the instant business, and thus, did not acquire the instant business by transfer. 2) Even if the Plaintiff was the transferee of the instant business, he did not know about the transferor’s violation.

B. According to Article 39(1) and (3) of the Food Sanitation Act, where a business operator transfers his/her business to another person, dies, or where a corporation is merged, the transferee, heir, or the corporation surviving the merger or established by the merger shall succeed to the status of the business operator, and the successor to the status of the business operator shall report the fact to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety or the Mayor/Do governor of the Special Self-Governing City within

Considering the overall purport of Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff transferred the business of this case from Eul to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety on September 1, 2016.