beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B, on August 17, 2009, with the trade name “D” from the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and the first floor, operated a restaurant after completing a report on general restaurant business with approximately 33 square meters (after that, as a result of the facility survey conducted by the public official in charge of the defendant, the size of the place of business was determined as 107.16 square meters).
B. After that, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of a business operator from February 27, 2014, and operated the E (hereinafter “instant business”) “E” at the same place.
C. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 4,200,000 in lieu of seven days of the suspension of business corresponding to the primary violation of Article 37 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1090, Aug. 18, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 37 of the Food Sanitation Act because the size of the place of business was increased and the size of the place of business was not reported on May 19, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 75 and Article 82 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1090, Aug. 18, 2014).
On April 1, 2015, the Defendant still discovered that the Plaintiff did not report the change without permission, and applied Articles 75 and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2015, imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,00,000 in lieu of the business suspension falling under the second violation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition No. 2 and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 25, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 10 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The disposition;