beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. A A on February 28, 2013, the business site area of the Plaintiff’s business site located on the date of filing a report on the Plaintiff’s business title Nos. 1 A on February 28, 2013, Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul on May 30, 200, Jung-gu H I 52.83 C C on July 1, 2001, Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul on July 31, 201, Jung-gu, Seoul on July 31, 201, JK 37.24 D D 5, Jung-gu, Seoul on February 24, 2014, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul on February 24, 2014.
A. The Plaintiffs reported each general restaurant business as indicated in the following table, and operated each of the relevant restaurants from the time of each business report.
B. The Defendant issued a corrective order to Plaintiff A, B, C, and D on January 4, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ respective places of business are discovered that the area of each place of business used by the Plaintiffs exceeded the area of each place of business originally reported, and that Article 75(1) and the latter part of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 26 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act were modified and that they did not report any change in the area of the place of business.
C. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant inspected the size of each business site of the Plaintiffs again, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs were operating as the previous businesses without complying with the corrective order, and on April 25, 2016, ordered the Plaintiffs to suspend their business for the same reason pursuant to the same provision.
The plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the above business suspension disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and on August 22, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made a ruling that the business suspension disposition against the plaintiffs is changed to the imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the three days of business suspension.
E. Accordingly, on October 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,360,00 on Plaintiff A, KRW 2,640,00 on Plaintiff B, KRW 1,170,000 on Plaintiff C, KRW 690,000 on Plaintiff D, and KRW 3,360,00 on Plaintiff E, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).