beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 8, 199, the Plaintiff completed a business report pursuant to the Food Sanitation Act with respect to the size of 72.30 square meters of Si/Gunpo-si B and 1 floor around September 8, 199, and operates a general restaurant in the name of “C” from that time.
B. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,000 in lieu of seven days of business suspension on August 29, 2013 on the ground that it was discovered that the Plaintiff installed a tables and a tent, etc. in front of the place of business without reporting the change in the area of the place of business beyond the reported area as the place of business.
C. However, even thereafter, the Plaintiff was recommended to correct the same violation on May 13, 2014 and May 24, 2014 when the Defendant discovered the same violation at each sanitary establishment guidance inspection conducted on May 24, 2014.
Therefore, on July 30, 2014, the Defendant determined a disposition of penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business pursuant to Articles 75(1)7 and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 37(4) of the same Act and Articles 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which allowed the Plaintiff to report the change in the area of the place of business by installing a tables and tent, etc. in the front of the place of business, beyond the area of the business, which was originally reported as the place of business. As for the period of the suspension of business, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge in lieu of the suspension of business pursuant to Articles 75(1)7 and 82 of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1090, Aug. 18, 2014) attached Table 23 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 15, Feb. 15, 2014).
C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the above disposition, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission partially accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 15, 2014, and the penalty surcharge per day of business suspension in relation to the calculation of penalty surcharge.