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 April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff is a general restaurant in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “D”) with the right to operate the instant business, and is engaged in food service business at the instant business establishment with the right to operate the instant business.

B. Around 2013, the Defendant issued a seven-day business suspension order against B on the ground that B had customers enjoy dancing at the instant establishment that had been licensed by B (hereinafter “instant establishment”). From December 26, 2013 to January 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a seven-day business suspension order (hereinafter “instant business suspension order”).

C. On December 26, 2013, the period of business suspension of the instant business establishment, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for 90 days against the Plaintiff from July 1, 2014 to September 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition 1”).

In addition, on February 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for seven days from September 29, 2014 to October 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant business establishment had 20 customers enjoy dancing at the central stheme, etc.

E. Meanwhile, at the time of the violation of the instant disposition No. 2, E, the actual operator of the said business, was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 28, 2014 due to the same criminal facts as the violation of the instant disposition No. 2, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 6, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 8, 13 (including each number), a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., mistake of facts during the business suspension period of the previous business suspension period, there is no fact that the business was actually conducted, and the business suspension period begins.