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 a person who runs a food sales business under the trade name called “Cat” (hereinafter “Cat”).

나. 피고는, 소외 D(이하 ‘민원인’이라고만 한다)으로부터 2017. 3. 8. 위 마트에서 구입한 ‘짬뽕왕뚜껑’(이하 ‘이 사건 제품’이라 한다)의 유통기한이 경과되었다는 신고를 받고, 처분 사전통지와 의견제출 절차를 거친 후 2017. 4. 17. 원고에 대하여 영업정지 7일의 처분을 하였다.

C. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission. The Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission made an adjudication that changed the period of suspension of business on June 26, 2017 to four days, and expressed its opinion that the Plaintiff changed the period of suspension of business, and the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,760,000 in lieu of the four days of business suspension on August 25, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was reduced and changed by a penalty surcharge on April 17, 2017, (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, and the entries in Gap 3, Eul 1 through 5, and 9 through 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not sell the products whose expiration of the distribution period.

According to the current status of the sales of the instant products and the result of inventory inspection, etc., if the instant Maart’s ordinary cups were sold, there is extremely little possibility that the instant Maart would be sold if the instant Mat would have been stored in Mat, and the civil petitioner would have placed the instant Mat on the receipt even though the amount returned to about eight minutes after the purchase is the same as the amount returned again, the item is different from the fact, and thus, the item remains on the receipt, and 50,000 won was demanded on the part of the Plaintiff after the purchase, and 1 and 2 days were required to compensate for damages, and even if the report had already been filed, the civil petitioner made a false statement to the Plaintiff.