1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of the suspension of business for one month from the Defendant (from February 16, 2016 to March 16, 2016) from February 1, 2016, as a person who operates a general restaurant in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”, and was issued a disposition of the suspension of business on February 1, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the foregoing disposition and filed an administrative appeal seeking its revocation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and rendered a decision to suspend the execution of a disposition of business suspension by the time the administrative appeal is decided, but on May 30, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. On June 20, 2016, the Defendant issued an administrative appeals commission’s ruling, given the Plaintiff an opportunity to state its opinion in accordance with the above ruling, and issued a disposition of suspension of business (the instant disposition shall be taken in the following cases) from July 11, 2016 to August 9, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant’s disposition and the instant court collected the opinions of the parties, and the instant court recommended the Defendant to revise the instant disposition to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 2.4 million on the date of business suspension 15 days (from July 11, 2016 to August 9, 2016) and re-disposition a penalty surcharge of KRW 2.4 million. However, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the recommendation for mediation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 9 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) sought to examine the identification card to juvenile E and F, who are employees, but they called as adults, ordered D to do so in a planned manner after they belong to D, and reported to the police without doing so. In light of the above facts, the instant disposition has no grounds for disposition.