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 had been operating a restaurant with the trade name “C” in Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from February 1996 after obtaining permission to operate a general restaurant business under the Plaintiff’s name.

B. On June 13, 2007, the registration of the Plaintiff’s business regarding the instant restaurant was cancelled, and on June 15, 2007, the Plaintiff’s business was registered under the Plaintiff’s mother D with respect to the instant restaurant, and it did not report that D succeeds to the Plaintiff’s business status.

C. The Defendant determined that the instant restaurant was in a de facto state of discontinuance because the Plaintiff did not visit the instant restaurant on November 2013 and around December 2012, 2013, but did not operate the restaurant, and that the instant restaurant was in a state of discontinuance of business. Since it was confirmed in the Office of the Incheon Tax Office, the Plaintiff’s business registration was revoked.

Accordingly, on February 14, 2014, the defendant revoked the permission of the restaurant business of this case against the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not discontinue the restaurant of this case. However, the plaintiff's name was changed in the name of the business operator and reported the succession to the status of the restaurant business was omitted.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

In addition, in 2012, the Plaintiff was unable to complete food sanitation education only once in the year of 2012, and delegated the procedure for changing the name of the business operator to the tax office, but the tax office omitted the report of succession to the status of the business operator in the tax office, and changed the disposition of a fine for negligence to some restaurants who did not complete food sanitation education, such as the Plaintiff.

B. Determination of relevant laws and regulations is also made.