1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A and B were exposed to the trade name “G,” Plaintiff C and D, the trade name of “I,” and Plaintiff E, the trade name of “K,” respectively, while operating a general restaurant in J on May 13, 2014, the fact that Plaintiff A and B failed to report the change of the place of business despite the difference between the reported area and the reported area.

B. Accordingly, on June 13, 2014, the Defendant issued an administrative disposition of each of the seven business suspension days (from July 7, 2014 to July 13, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not change the area of each business site and make a report of change pursuant to Articles 37(4) and 75(1)7 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, following the prior notification procedure under Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act with respect to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, 6-1, 2, 3, 6-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 through 9, Gap evidence 3-1 through 16, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiffs asserted that at the time of the initial opening of the business, several trustees began in a narrow space where the size of each business establishment was gradually expanded, and the current expansion of the store area was brought about. However, due to the characteristics of the conventional market, it was impossible to expand the facilities and install the facilities suitable for them; due to the characteristics of the store located in the conventional market, the installation of a septic tank was not possible; the installation of a septic tank was not reported on the area of the place of business; and when the instant disposition is executed, the infringement of private interest is significant.