1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

Since 195 or 196, the Plaintiffs reported the business of food service and operated a restaurant as follows in Gangwon-gu E.

Plaintiff

On July 6, 1996, the business type (type of business) AF on the date of business reporting the trade name (general restaurant) and on April 21, 1995, the Plaintiffs reported the alteration of the business site area based on the “area indicated in the first building register” under Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 43(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on June 2, 2095, pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 43(1) of the same Enforcement Rule.

On November 30, 2016, the defendant sent a reply that it is impossible to accept a report on change of food business as a result of the review of related laws and regulations of the related departments (Management of Mountainous Districts Act, Building Act).

On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs reported a change in the reported food business with the content that the “place of business” was changed based on the “place of actual business.”

On December 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that “a civil petition regarding a report on the change of business reported as of December 20, 2016 is the same as the one already responded, and thus, the documents submitted shall be returned.”

On December 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order (the period of correction: up to March 27, 2017) pursuant to Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground of violation of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 43 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (where the size of the place of business is modified and the report on modification is not filed).

(P) On December 27, 2016, the Defendant sent a reply as follows: “The Plaintiff’s restaurant location constitutes a preserved mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act; whether the Plaintiff consented to land use; there was no evidentiary document on the construction year of the building; and the permission for mountainous district conversion was not obtained; thus, the application for the birth of the building ledger and the alteration of indication is not possible.”

For convenience, "each of the second dispositions of this case" is "each of the second dispositions of this case".

The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit.