1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 20, 2010, the Plaintiff operates a restaurant with a trade name “C” (hereinafter “C”) in accordance with Articles 2 and 104 of the member-gu, Ansan-si.

B. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for 15 days (from April 14, 2016 to April 28, 2016) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to file a report on the change in the size of the place of business (the third violation) in the restaurant.

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 8, 2016.

C. Accordingly, on June 24, 2016, the Defendant again issued a disposition to suspend business operations for 15 days (from July 6, 2016 to July 20, 2016) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1, and 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a temporary building or a fence installed on the side of the above restaurant and operated a business there to the extent that it is difficult for customers to access the restaurant due to the dispute with the neighboring merchants regarding the use of the parking lot near the restaurant of this case. The Plaintiff was subject to the instant disposition as a civil petition filed by the neighboring merchants.

In addition to the circumstances leading to such an act of violation, the Plaintiff and his family members are obliged to pay a considerable amount of debts to financial institutions after receiving the Gap-ray surgery, the Plaintiff and their family members are unable to conduct the instant disposition, causing enormous inconvenience to their livelihood, and the Plaintiff’s violation constitutes minor or intentional cases. In light of the fact that the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff and constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is relevant to the violation as a ground for the disposition.