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 October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a license for food service business (general restaurant) from the Defendant, and operated a c general restaurant in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C” in Songpa-gu. On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff stored c's food, which was a food for which an import declaration was not filed, and was exposed to the Police Control Team.

B. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the suspension of business for two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff stored food for cooking and selling that failed to file an import declaration as above.

【Ground of recognition】 Any description of the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's non-reported imported food is the plaintiff's words in Japan, and the plaintiff's purchase of Chinese traditional food after cooking it, but did not divide it into part of the plaintiff's use for sale purpose.

Even if it is a non-reported imported food stored for the purpose of sale by tsunami, it is merely a 1studio, and thus, the instant disposition is too harsh to the economic damage suffered by the plaintiff than the public interest that can be gained by it.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is erroneous in abusing the discretion of the defendant.

B. Even if the administrative judgment whether the Plaintiff stored the unreported imported food for sale is not bound by the fact-finding in the relevant criminal trial, the criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis shall be a significant evidence in the administrative trial, and the above criminal judgment shall be rejected and the facts opposed thereto shall not be recognized, barring any special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial.

In full view of the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was from the Seoul Central District Court on August 12, 2014.