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 8, 2012, the Plaintiff is operating a danran bar (hereinafter “instant establishment”) with the trade name “Cromanium” on the second floor of Busan Jung-gu. B.

B. On April 15, 2014, the police officer belonging to the Busan Central Police Station finds out the fact that the Plaintiff had D provide entertainment services to customers at the instant establishment.

C. On the same day, the head of Busan Central Police Station notified the Defendant of the instant business establishment as a statutory breach business establishment, and on December 5, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month by applying Articles 75(1) and 44(1) 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 had the instant business establishment provide entertainment services, as above, on the ground that he had the Plaintiff provided entertainment services at the instant business establishment.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Busan Metropolitan Administrative Appeals Commission changed the disposition of business suspension for one month on March 24, 2015 to the disposition of business suspension for 20 days (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") on December 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition did not support the Plaintiff’s employment of D as entertainment reception workers on the day of the instant case, or D to provide entertainment entertainment services. 2) Even if a deviation or abuse of discretionary power causes the Plaintiff to provide entertainment services, other local governments issued a corrective order in the case of the first violation by applying Article 44(3) of the Food Sanitation Act. The Defendant, even though it is the same case, applies Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act.