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 purchased a building at B’s domicile from around 1978 and operated a frequency of “Ccafeteria” with the trade name “Ccafeteria,” and around 1980, the Plaintiff reported the general restaurant business to the Defendant with the trade cafeteria and the area of 56.3 square meters (However, from around 1981 to September 2004, the name of the business operator was D, from around September 2004 to October 2013, from around 2013, up to October 2013, the Plaintiff was operating a house at the same place (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

At present, the area of the place of business of the restaurant of this case reaches a total of 304 square meters.

C. On April 21, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report the change of the size of the instant restaurant’s business site. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s written opinion, and issued a corrective order on May 29, 2015.

However, upon the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order, July 31, 2015 demanded implementation of the corrective order, and November 13, 2015 notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of business. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s written opinion was submitted, and on December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a disposition of suspension of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for seven days for the Plaintiff (7 days from December 14, 2015 to December 20, 2015).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not extend the place of business of the instant restaurant, and only partially expanded the parking lot.

(2) The defendant dispatched a public official in charge to the site for more than 30 years who operated the restaurant of this case each year to inspect the violation of various administrative laws and regulations from time to time, and recognized the absence of any problem, and continued to enter into a loan agreement on the land which is military property.