1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 10, 2016, B operated a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in the Gu and American City C from March 10, 2016.

B. At around 02:40 on August 7, 2016, the old U.S. Police Station discovered the facts that employees and customers had singing by installing sn beam project and Internet TV in the instant restaurant with the sn beam line program.

C. After acquiring the instant restaurant from B, the Plaintiff completed a report on the succession to the status of food service business on August 23, 2016, and changed its trade name to E. D.

On November 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that a general restaurant business operator is equipped with sound reflective facilities and allowing customers to singing, thereby violating the obligations of business operators under Article 44(1) of the same Act.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against this, and on January 23, 2017, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to reduce the business suspension by 20 days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 9 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition by the plaintiff 1, in the restaurant of this case, where an employee who is a balance of revenues and losses, sing and performing a public performance in order to photograph the video, and the customers did not get the customers to sing directly, and the employees only sing and singing on the place of the customers with the defect of singing, and therefore, they do not violate Article 44 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act.

In addition, in a criminal case related to this case, B was issued a summary order in violation of Article 44(3) of the Food Sanitation Act.