1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception that the first instance alters the first-class No. 4, first-class No. 12, first-class No. 5, first-class No. 4, first-class No. 12, second-class No. 5, second-class No. 5, second-class No. 11, and second-class No. 5, second-class No. 11, and second-class No. 19, second-class “new trust” as “new trust,” second-class No. 3, second-class No. 7, and second-class No. 20, “5,” and second-class No.

The replacement part of the Plaintiff asserts that the instant warehouse is not a building, but is not subject to a report on the change of the area of the business place. However, the following circumstances, namely, Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Food Sanitation Act, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the facts without dispute between the parties and the entire purport of arguments, defines “business” as “business of collecting, manufacturing, importing, processing, cooking, storing, subdividing, transporting or selling foods or food additives, or manufacturing, importing, transporting or selling (excluding food collection business belonging to agriculture and fisheries) apparatus, containers or packages.” The prior meaning of “business place” is “business place” as “business place,” and it is a “business place,” which is “business place,” which is a place, where the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of processing and selling food, continues to use the instant warehouse, for storing raw materials of the food that the Plaintiff would have processed and selling, constitutes a business place. On the contrary, the Food Sanitation Act limits its business place to be a building.