1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following addition or dismissal among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(1) On the second and fifth pages, the following shall be added to the table:

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial against each of the instant dispositions on December 5, 2013, but was dismissed on September 30, 2014.” (2) In the last 2nd eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 5.

(3) On the 3rd page 16th page “Evidence 3,” the following shall be added.

(4) The following shall be added to the 3rd page “a fact maintained”:

“C, which operated the instant entertainment bars, is subject to an administrative disposition of 75 days of business suspension from March 13, 2013 to May 26, 2013 on the ground that the instant real estate second floor general restaurant installed singinging equipment at a general restaurant and engaged in singinging business with male visitors, etc., and (5) the first instance court’s judgment was 5 to 4, 10.”

"A fact may be recognized."

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant entertainment tavern was entirely removed on the ground that the electric consumption of the instant real estate was sharply decreased from the police officer around March 2013. However, the said time is consistent with C’s business suspension period (from March 13, 2013 to May 26, 2013) with respect to general restaurant business of the second floor of the instant building, and it cannot be deemed that the instant entertainment tavern facilities were entirely removed from this point. It is reasonable to deem that the instant entertainment tavern facilities were removed after September 2013.

On the other hand, there is no objective financial data corresponding to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and witness D's testimony in light of the time of submission or there is no objective financial data, and Gap evidence Nos. 1-6 and Gap evidence Nos. 7-10.