1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (7.09m2, hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “B” in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On May 6, 2020, the Defendant operated his business outside the reported place of business on April 14, 2020 to the Plaintiff on May 6, 2020.

(2) On the ground that “instant disposition” was imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,610,00 in lieu of the seven days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] of the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the grounds for the overall argument, and the relevant statutes. Whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not, the plaintiff did not operate outside the place of business. The defendant mistakenly ascertains the facts, and the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing the discretionary authority. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence, evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, and the purport of the entire pleadings. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff’s representative is recognized as having operated the instant restaurant beyond the reported size on April 14, 2020, the person responsible for the management of the instant restaurant does not accept the allegation that the grounds for disposition did not exist.

It is recognized to confirm that the building is operated in a place other than the permitted building area.

The business report area is 7.09 square meters, and the actual business area is about 143.53 square meters.

2. On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiff wishes to change the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge instead of the disposition of business suspension, as the business situation is difficult, to the Defendant on May 4, 2020 after receiving the prior notice of disposition.

(3) On October 16, 2020, the Plaintiff appeared on the third day for pleading of the instant case and appeared on October 16, 2020, and only the name C in relation to the operation of the instant restaurant.