1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a restaurant in the name of “C” in the following cities: “C” (hereinafter “C”).

B. Around October 20, 2017, the LAD made a decision that drinking water is inappropriate on the ground that, after collecting drinking water used by the restaurant in this case, water quality testing was conducted on all the items of drinking water, nitrogen oxide was found to have exceeded 10.0mg/L, the permissible value of which was 13.3mg/L, due to the nature of nitrogen was detected on November 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “Determination of Nonconformity” as of November 1, 2017. Accordingly, on November 2, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition (Notice of Submission of Opinions) to the Plaintiff prior to issuing an order to improve the facility.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant, around November 2, 2017, had D to re-take drinking water used in the instant restaurant, and conducted water quality testing with respect to the water quality of nitrogen items. On November 7, 2017, D to the KUD decided that the water of nitrogen is suitable for drinking water because the water of nitrogen is found to have been detected 9.5mg/L from the sample collected as above within the permissible level.

On November 20, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to improve the facilities in accordance with Articles 36 and 74 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that it is inappropriate to determine the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017.

E. On December 17, 2018, the Defendant issued an administrative disposition of business suspension 15 days on the ground that the drinking water used in the instant restaurant exceeds the permissible level of nitrogenous acid (hereinafter “instant violation”) based on the result of the inspection conducted by the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. on November 8, 2018, on the ground that the drinking water used in the instant restaurant was identical to that of the facility repair order as of November 20, 2017, and thus, it constitutes a case where the second disposition was taken within one year due to the same reason.

The first suspension of business is called ‘the first suspension of business'.

F. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Jeollabuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission on the initial disposition of business suspension.