1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a mutually resting restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “C” on the first and second floors of the building located in Seosan-gu, Seosan-gu.

B. On September 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order against the Plaintiff on the ground that it violated Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act (the first violation) by failing to report any change in the area of the place of business after running the business in the building in which the instant restaurant is being run in addition to the area of the place of business reported by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. After that, two cases of civil petition reports filed by the Defendant that illegal business was conducted in the instant restaurant were received, and the Defendant’s employees conducted a field investigation on November 22, 2016, around 13:10. The Plaintiff kept 6-8 tablers, 20 chairs, and 10 table tables inside the instant building, and confirmed the fact that customers received food purchased from the instant food.

Accordingly, on December 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition ordering seven days of business suspension pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not expand the place of business of the instant restaurant and report the change thereof (the second violation).

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 24, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 through 5,

8. Each description or image of evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1. The plaintiff is a person who has obtained permission to be "responding restaurant", and it is not subject to regulation pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that customers take outside food at will after cooking and completing packaging in the restaurant of this case.

2.