1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 2017, pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, the Plaintiff filed a report on the business of food service business (general restaurant) with the location of the place of business as “Seoul Jongno-gu and Subdivision C (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and with the area of 10.65 square meters, and thereafter, operated the restaurant in the instant place of business from around that time.

B. On February 8, 2018, the Defendant conducted a guidance and inspection on the instant place of business, and discovered the fact that the actual area of the instant place of business reaches approximately 300 square meters.

Accordingly, on March 21, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective order against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 75(1)7 of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Defendant did not file a report under the latter part of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act even though the Defendant extended the instant place of business without permission to change the area of the place of business.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, Gap’s No. 1, Eul’s No. 1, 3, and 4

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely accepted and used the instant place of business, which had been expanded without permission, and does not expand it without permission. Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground of “illegal expansion of a place of business” is not acknowledged. Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground of “unauthorized expansion of a place of business.” 2) The process for altering the purpose of use and expanding the area of the entire building including the instant place of business is underway, and there is a disadvantage that the Plaintiff suffers compared to the degree of

Therefore, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretionary power.

B. According to Article 37(4) and Article 36(1)3 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 21 subparag. 8, Article 25(1)8, and Article 26 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, when a general restaurant subject to reporting is intended to operate the relevant business site.