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 January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the business name to the Defendant as “B”, the location as “Seoul Yongsan-gu C”, the type of general restaurant as “Seoul Yongsan-gu,” and the succession to the status of the business operator, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was operating the instant place of business.

B. On June 4, 2015, around 21:51, the Plaintiff: (a) installed 13 trustees and 5 chairs in front of the instant business site; (b) operated the business of selling food to 32 customers; and (c) was exposed to the Defendant’s control.

C. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 3290,000 in lieu of the business suspension day on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a facility (trustee and chair) at a place of business outside the place of business and operated a business (second violation).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following: (a) customers want to drink in front of the place of business and offer them to customers’ use; (b) the customers run a business by checking their clients in front of the place of business due to infating; and (c) currently making their living difficult; and (d) the instant disposition was an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms should be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the administrative disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du9910, Jun. 28, 2007; 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007). In this case, even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is stipulated in the internal administrative rules of the administrative agency.