1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the business name B, the location of the office as the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the first floor above ground, and the type of business as a food service business (general restaurant) and operated the general restaurant at the above place of business.

B. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff, at around 23:10, was found to have been aware of the Defendant’s control when setting up a consignee and a chair before the place of business outside the place of business, and doing business.

C. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 3.920,000,000, in lieu of seven days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a facility (depositor and chair) in front of the place of business outside the place of business, which was reported to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff took over the said place of business on the condition that he/she takes over the liabilities of an existing business owner from April 2016, by receiving an investment in the acquisition fund from the land owner.

The plaintiff knew that he should not run his business outside the reported place of business, but was unable to repay his debt, and thus he was subject to the disposition of this case.

The instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. Each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1 of evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-2, and 4-1, the following circumstances, namely, the instant disposition, that is, Article 75(1)7 of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016); Article 89 and [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Ⅱ Individual Standards

3. Food service business 8;

(c) the Commission; or

H. 2) Article 82(1) and (2) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016); Article 53 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act is in line with the criteria for disposal as stipulated in the attached Table 1.