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 July 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order (by July 22, 2016) in accordance with the administrative disposition criteria under Articles 37(4) and 71 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff, a general restaurant operator in the name of “Cstore” in the Gu, U.S. Si B, on the ground that the Plaintiff “business only within the reported business area, and, in the event that the business area has been changed, he/she installed and operated a business facility outside the place of business without such procedures.”

B. Notwithstanding the above corrective order, the Plaintiff’s construction of a business facility outside the place of business reported on July 25, 2016 and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition of business suspension seven days in accordance with the administrative disposition criteria under Article 75(1)17 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act against the Plaintiff on August 18, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but dismissed on September 26, 2016, filed the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is permitted to operate outdoor business in some of the areas of the Gu/Si/Gun, the instant disposition is unreasonable, such as not allowing outdoor business to the restaurant of this case is contrary to equity.

B. (1) In light of the circumstance that each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 13 revealed by the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the fact that a certain restriction is imposed on a restaurant within the specialized distance for food culture of the old and the old, including the installation of a simple convenient convenience facility, which is not a fixed facility, etc., it cannot be deemed that the permission for outdoor business was granted only to some areas, and there is no other evidence that the instant disposition is unreasonable and unreasonable.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.