1. On March 13, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke the permission of each business license against the Plaintiff (a disposition number: 20198, 2019 ex officio9).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates each of the entertainment taverns with the trade name “C” on the first floor and the first floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the second floor of the same building and the second floor of the same building with “D”.

(hereinafter referred to as “each entertainment tavern of this case” together with each entertainment tavern of this case.

On January 23, 2019, the Defendant confirmed that the entire business facilities of each entertainment drinking club in this case were removed (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. On March 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition (a disposition number: 20198, 20199 ex officio9 (D entertainment tavern); hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) revoking each business license of the instant entertainment tavern pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground of the instant violation against the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. Each disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) In the process of each of the dispositions of this case, the defendant did not undergo the hearing procedure. The defendant presented a notice of hearing to the plaintiff but presented it to the plaintiff at the time of return and announced it to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government newsletter, etc. However, the service of this case is not legitimate, but it does not constitute an exception that may omit the hearing procedure. The grounds for each of the dispositions of this case are "the whole removal of business facilities", and each of the dispositions of this case does not constitute "the removal of business facilities of this case", and the plaintiff is merely a compulsory execution based on the judgment that has already lost its validity, not a whole removal of business facilities of each of the entertainment tavern of this case, but a building owner's removal by the intention of the business permission authority. Thus, the above disposition does not fall