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 June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) completed a business report on the name of the business office to the Defendant, stating that the name of the business office is “ELSB”; (b) the location is “Seoul Dongdaemun-ro 13 and 3 stories (Cheongmul-dong, Cheongmul-dong)” (hereinafter “instant building”); and (c) the area of the business place is “2,351.28 square meters,” and operated a wedding hall and restaurant at that place.

B. From November 2014, in addition to the third floor of the instant building, the Plaintiff used the entire second floor of the instant building as a space for prob and various events, and changed its business registration with the content of adding the second floor of the instant building to the location of the business registration certificate and adding the “bench, franchise, general restaurant, and performance facility operation” to “bench, franchise, general restaurant, and performance facility operation” as an existing business item.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff sought to find the Defendant’s health and hygiene and public official in charge of the instant building several times to add the two floors of the instant building to the area of the instant building and to submit a report on the change of the business reported to change the area of the instant building. However, the above public official in charge expressed his intention not to accept the report on the change of the area of the instant building on the ground that some sectional owners of the instant second floor of the instant building did not lease the entire two floors of the instant building on the ground that the petition for the change of the business reported was serious. However, the Plaintiff did not accept the report on the change of the business reported on the ground that the lease contract for the entire second floor of the instant building was not attached.

On December 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the area of the place of business and did not report the change thereof in accordance with Articles 75(1)7 and 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (by January 20, 2015).