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 obtained permission to operate an entertainment tavern business for the business name “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On November 30, 2018, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation, and confirmed that business had not been performed from March 5, 2018 at the instant establishment, and subsequently, on December 4, 2018, notified the Plaintiff of the disposal prior notice and the hearing procedure with the following content.

Violations and grounds for disposition: Details of violation under Articles 37 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act: Disposition scheduled to close down business without permission and to remove all business facilities: Ex officio revocation of permission (ex officio).

C. On January 7, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the permission of the instant business establishment pursuant to Article 75(3)1 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant business establishment continues to be temporarily closed for not less than six months without justifiable grounds, following the hearing procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) The instant disposition reason for procedural defect is “the case where a business operator continues to suspend business for at least six months without any justifiable reason.” However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the details of the offense subject to a hearing as “the closure of business and the removal of the entire business facilities” and followed the procedure for the hearing. “Suspension of business” is to suspend business for a certain period with a business intent, while “the closure of business itself itself means the discontinuance of business,” which differs from each other, it is unlawful that the instant disposition that imposed a disposition that differs from the contents of the offense subject to a hearing procedure was not lawful. 2) The Plaintiff’s absence of the grounds for disposition from April 2018.