1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant place of business”) with the trade name “C” in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “C”).

B. As a result of the inspection of the area of the instant place of business, the Defendant issued a corrective order on March 21, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the area of the place of business actually used exceeds 29.5 square meters, which was the area originally reported, and on March 21, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the area of the place of business and did not report the change thereof.

C. On September 23, 2016, the Defendant issued an order of business suspension for seven days on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business operation was discovered without complying with the above corrective order, and on October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an order of business suspension for seven days on the ground that “the size of the place of business was modified and the alteration was not reported” pursuant to Articles 75 and 37 of the Food Sanitation Act to the Plaintiff.

On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the above disposition of suspension of business with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said commission rendered a ruling to the effect that the said disposition of suspension of business should be replaced by a penalty surcharge in lieu thereof.

E. On February 6, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,00 on the Plaintiff in lieu of the foregoing disposition of suspension of business, and the foregoing disposition of suspension of business was changed to the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge as above.

(1) 【Court of Second Instance 1】 【Court of Second Instance 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 1’ 2’

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant disposition in Chapter 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as it violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

According to Articles 21(1) and 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, an administrative agency shall present the facts, contents, and grounds for the disposition in its disposition.

However, the defendant is not only at the time of the corrective order, but also at the time of notice.