1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that has obtained permission for intermediate wholesale business from the Defendant with regard to the Cheongbi B (hereinafter “B”) established by Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act”) and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance”).

B. Pursuant to Article 21 of the Distribution of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act, the Plaintiff leased 1st floor C from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural and Fishery Food Corporation, which is a market manager in B, as a store in B, and runs a intermediary wholesale business such as a large number of horse.

C. From February 3, 2016 through prior notice and the submission of opinions, the Defendant violated the standards for the use of major facilities, such as the replacement of the facilities to others, by using the Plaintiff’s store to D direct merchant E (representative F; hereinafter “E”) a limited liability company (hereinafter “E”) for a short time, in violation of Article 74(1) of the Distribution and Distribution of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act, on January 31, 2018; Articles 82(5)8 and 74(1) of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act; Article 56 and [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act”);

2. Individual standards:

B. A 45-day disposition of business suspension was issued pursuant to 13) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d) The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor set the period of suspension of business from February 16, 2018 to April 1, 2018 at the time of the instant disposition, but corrected the period of suspension of business from February 28, 2018 to April 29, 2018 (Provided, That the correction of the period of suspension of business is merely the period of suspension of execution of the disposition, and is not a new disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6061 delivered on September 13, 1988). [See Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6061 delivered on September 13, 198] Fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and 9 (each of the items, including each

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 grounds for disposition.