1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. On July 24, 1981, a general food business report was filed for the first time with the trade name, “C,” and “43.12 square meters,” in the Danan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, North Korea, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the business operator on March 4, 2005, and operated a collection of frequencies (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) at the same place until now.

B. At present, the area of business of the instant restaurant is more than the reported 43.12 square meters, and is more than 143.06 square meters.

C. On September 2, 2019, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report the change of the size of the place of business of the instant restaurant on September 2, 2019, was subject to the disposition of the instant disposition of the suspension of business for 30

A. [The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings is the plaintiff's assertion.

A. The Plaintiff did not extend the place of business beyond the reported area of the first business, and used only a space other than the reported business area for daily use. Thus, there is no ground for disposition in the instant disposition.

B. The Plaintiff had taken over the business in a state where the area of the business was changed, and there was no ground provision for the disposition of business suspension at that time. Thus, the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of statutory reservation.

C. Although the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on a place other than the reported business area of the instant restaurant, and did not demand or notify the change of the size of the place of business upon payment of rent for a long time, the Defendant unilaterally terminates the loan agreement and unilaterally terminates the disposition of suspension of business is in violation of the principle of trust protection or the principle of prohibition of speech.

The instant disposition was beyond the scope of discretion or abused discretion.

E. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

The grounds for the determination of the legitimacy of the instant disposition exist.