1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a general restaurant business with the trade name in Jeonbuk-gun B, Jeonbuk-gun as C.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”). B.

On July 24, 1981, when the report on the business of the restaurant of this case was accepted, the size of the place of business was 26.1 square meters, but it was about 20 years prior to the increase in the size of the place of business, leading to the increase in the size of 146.86 square meters.

C. The defendant did not report the change in the size of the place of business of the restaurant of this case.

(4) On May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) between 30 days (from June 10, 2019 to July 9, 2019) against the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in Nos. 7 and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) succeeded to the restaurant business of this case from the existing operator, and there was no extension of the place of business after the succession of the business, and only partially expanding the parking lot. Meanwhile, the area of the place of business refers to “store area” and “joint-use facility area (the stairs, elevator, connecting channel, etc. of the floor directly related to the use of the store)” and the “joint-use facility area (the stairs, elevator, connecting channel, etc. of the floor directly related to the use of the store). Since the Plaintiff uses the space exceeding the first place of business, not for its daily use, it cannot be deemed that the area of the Plaintiff’s place of business was changed. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise of the violation of the obligation is unlawful. 2) Since the Plaintiff did not have a duty to report the change of the area of the place of business, the disposition of this case, which is based on the violation of the obligation, should be governed by the law at the time of the violation.