1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was established on August 9, 201 and operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “B” in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the main office of which is located, Nam-gu, Incheon. The Plaintiff is the representative director of the Nonparty Company.

B. On April 17, 2014, around 15:20 on April 17, 2014, Nonparty Company: (a) was discovered by the Defendant that the instant restaurant was operated by expanding the area of the place of business reported to the competent authority without permission by installing a cooling house that keeps the collection and hydrogen, etc. provided to customers.

C. On August 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 9.1 million in lieu of the seven days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the non-party company on the ground that the non-party company did not use the area of its place of business as a place of business after changing the area of its place of business as above and did not report the change thereof, and thereafter, issued a disposition of KRW 3.9 million in lieu of the three days of business suspension on October 6, 2014 after the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission’s

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5 through 7, Eul 1 through 5, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In principle, an administrative litigation has no benefit in filing a lawsuit against a person who is the other party to an administrative disposition and only obtains a direct and specific benefit from the cancellation of the disposition, and only has a de facto or indirect relationship.

(2) As to the disposition of this case, the other party to the disposition of this case is the non-party company, and even if the plaintiff is the representative director of the non-party company, the other party to the disposition of this case is not the other party to the disposition of this case.