1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a danran (hereinafter “instant main shop”) with the trade name “C” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On January 21, 2015, around 00:50, the Plaintiff was found by the police to have provided entertainment workers D with the condition that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 25,000 per hour at the request of the unclaimed male grandchildren at the instant main shop.

C. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business one month (from June 11, 2015 to July 10, 2015) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Articles 75 and 44 of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff employed the Plaintiff as above and caused the Plaintiff to provide entertainment visitors or to encourage or implied the said act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) According to Article 75(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, it does not stipulate that business suspension may be suspended in the event of a violation of Article 44(3) of the Food Sanitation Act.

However, according to the summary order issued by the Seoul Southern District Court on March 31, 2015, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff violated Article 44 (3) of the Food Sanitation Act by "recovering entertainment entertainment", and thus, the administrative disposition also is governed by the relevant law, and other local governments applied Article 44 (3) of the Food Sanitation Act to the same issue, and in the year 2014, issued a document to the Seoul Metropolitan Government's sanitation department to take administrative disposition in accordance with Article 44 (3) of the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, although the defendant should make a corrective order by applying Article 44(3) of the Food Sanitation Act, it is deemed that the plaintiff was "employment of entertainment receptionist" and the disposition of this case was taken for one month of business suspension by applying the law mistakenly.