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 restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” as referred to in the Daejeon Pream-gu B and 101.

B. On June 29, 2015, the Defendant’s public official belonging to the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City collected samples from the restaurant of this case on June 11, 2015 pursuant to the “Plan for Inspection and Collection Inspection of Food Service Facilities Handling D (Refriger, bean Water) for the prevention of food poisoning in 2015, and requested the Daejeon Metropolitan City Health and Environment Research Institute to inspect whether the samples are included in the register.

On July 7, 2014, the Public Health and Environment Research Institute of Daejeon Metropolitan City notified the Defendant of the results of the examination that the Defendant had reaction of equal cultivation at the sample taken from the restaurant of this case.

C. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 13,200,00 in lieu of 15 days of business suspension pursuant to Article 75(1)1 and Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 and [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s annual sales amount of KRW 13,20,00 in lieu of 15 days of business suspension pursuant to Article 75(1)1 and Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 and [Attachment Table 23]

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on September 21, 2015. [The grounds for recognition A, 2, 3, 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 2-1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no ground to dispose of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is likely to be contaminated with the unit franchis that were spread in the air if the Plaintiff did not pay a higher level after a high level of money, and the Plaintiff provided samples for the franchis test at the request of a public official in charge of the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City.

For the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea shall collect the bean water without any rash in the preceding year.