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 had been operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” from around December 21, 2004 to the name of D, which had completed the report of food service business on October 2, 2003, after having transferred the title of the report, from around December 21, 2004. The Plaintiff used the groundwater of the instant restaurant for cooking food (hereinafter “instant groundwater”).

B. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant submitted a water quality inspection report to the Plaintiff by May 31, 2017 after examining the water quality of groundwater, but notified the Plaintiff that the water that was judged inappropriate in the water quality inspection was subject to the closure disposition of the place of business, respectively.

C. On April 27, 2017, the New Bio-resources Environment Research Institute (hereinafter “New Bio-resources Environment Research Institute”) (hereinafter “New Bio-resources Environment Research Institute”) collected the instant groundwater and conducted water quality testing (hereinafter “the primary inspection”) upon the Plaintiff’s request, and on May 11, 2017, the judgment of “Unconformity with the General Maump Military” was made.

On May 12, 2017, the Defendant was notified by the New Bio-resources Research Institute of Water Quality and notified the Plaintiff of the results of water quality testing, and provided the Plaintiff with a guidance that the Plaintiff would purchase raw water or use water at a clear water business establishment by purchasing water supply at a clean water business establishment.

E. However, around 15:00 on May 15, 2017, a public official affiliated with the Defendant who visited the restaurant of this case was witnessed that the Plaintiff continued to use the instant groundwater.

F. Accordingly, on June 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, based on Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

AB made it.

G. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission (the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission), on August 21, 2017, changed the business closure disposition to six months.