영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is running a general restaurant business from November 2003 to the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on the first and second floors of the ground building B in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the first and second floors of the ground building B.
On April 15, 2016, public officials belonging to the Gyeongnam-do and Changwon-si discovered groundwater not being inspected in the restaurant of this case to be used for cooking, washing, etc. of food.
On May 11, 2016, the Defendant rendered a 15-day disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 44(1) and Article 75(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 57 [Attachment 17] Subparag. 6(p) and Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that groundwater that was not inspected at the instant restaurant was used for the cooking, washing, etc. of food.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff alleged that the ground water was used only for toilets and cleaning water, but not for food cooking, washing, etc., and the plaintiff did not know that it was subject to water quality inspection on the ground that it was judged that it was fit for drinking water as a result of water quality testing on the ground that the violation of this case was discovered, and that the disposition of this case was unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretion.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. Determination: (1) According to the details of notification of the volume of tap water and the volume of underground water used during the period from January 2005 to May 2016 to 137 months for the restaurant of this case, while the month in which the volume of tap water used is about 108 months, groundwater was used every month, while the volume of tap water used is about 344 tons in total; (2) on the other hand, the volume of groundwater used in the restaurant of this case under consideration of the circumstances in which the volume of tap water used was about 23,893 tons (written evidence No. 7), it can be recognized that groundwater was used in food cooking, washing, etc.; and (2) violation of administrative regulations.