1. On August 7, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,400,000 on the Plaintiff in lieu of the business suspension 15 days.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is running the “other food sales business” business under the trade name, i.e., 83-ro 12, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, under the name of “Eelart.”

(hereinafter, this case’s marinate) B.

The defendant from May 7, 2015 to the same year by the plaintiff from May 2015.

6. Until June 1, 200, a fine of 40,800 won was imposed in lieu of one month of business suspension, on the ground that: (a) purchased 1kg or 2kg a horse in 136g unit; and (b) distributed 136g a package and sold a food subdivision business, which is a type of business reported; and (c) engaged in the business of "food subdivision business," which is a type of business other than the business of "other food distribution

(hereinafter) The above business activities of the food subdivision industry are "violation of this case" and the above penalty surcharge is imposed ("the initial disposition"). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation on the initial disposition with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and on September 21, 2015, the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission partially accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and rendered a ruling that the initial disposition should be changed to a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge in lieu of the 15th day of business suspension.

On October 12, 2015, the Defendant changed the original disposition of business suspension to the disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 20,400,000 in lieu of the 15th day of business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case" in the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,400,000 in lieu of the 15th day of the business suspension that has been mitigated by an adjudication during the initial disposition of this case. 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 10 (including the number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant violation violates the principle of statutory reservation constitutes a violation of the former part of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “the Act”), but Article 75(1) of the Act provides that the suspension of business.