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 17, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a report on general restaurants (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name of “E” at the 163.32 square meters above the 1st floor of the building located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) and operated its business.

B. As a result of the inspection of the instant business site around October 26, 2016, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs are running the said business on the rooftop of the instant building in addition to the 163.32 square meters above the above ground level 1st floor.

On October 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “the size of the primary place of business was modified and the alteration was not reported,” pursuant to Articles 75 and 37 of the Food Sanitation Act.

C. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant inspected the area of the instant business site in the instant building and discovered the fact that the Plaintiffs still work on the rooftop of the instant building.

On June 20, 2017, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,00 in lieu of business suspension for seven days on the ground that “the size of a two-lane place of business was altered and the alteration was not reported” pursuant to Articles 75, 37, and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and 7 (if any, the number of each statement, including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) as originally reported, only operated the business on the first floor of the building of this case, and did not run the business on the rooftop of the building of this case. The rooftop of this case is a public place open to the general public, and only took food, etc. on the rooftop voluntarily by some or all of the customers in the business site of this case. 2) In addition to the above-mentioned 1, considering the fact that the plaintiffs did not violate the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the disposition of this case is discretionary in view of the fact that the plaintiffs violated the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.