1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs reported each general restaurant business as follows, and operated each relevant restaurant from the time of each business report.

Plaintiff

A on August 25, 2006, the trade name and the size of the business site at the seat of the date of the report, A. 45.84 (Change to 76.5) B on December 26, 2014, Jung-gu Seoul Central District EF 48.60

B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff A on June 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff B on June 23, 2015, respectively, on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ respective places of business are found to have exceeded the area of each place of business originally reported, and that Article 75(1) and the latter part of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 26 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act were stated as follows.

C. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant inspected the size of each business site of the Plaintiffs again, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs were engaged in the same business as before without complying with the corrective order. On March 10, 2016, the Defendant also ordered the Plaintiffs to suspend their business for the same reason, in accordance with the same provision.

The plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the seven days of each business suspension, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission decided August 22, 2016 that "The seven days of each business suspension against the plaintiffs shall be changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the three days of each business suspension."

E. Accordingly, on October 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,340,000 on the Plaintiff and KRW 3,00,000 on the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1 The first argument.