1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 1994, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the business operator of the Plaintiff’s “Dcafeteria” operated by the Plaintiff in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and changed its trade name to the “E restaurant.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”). B. The Plaintiff’s business place

In the Busan Dong-gu, Busan, where the instant business establishment is located, there was one-story wooden building with the total floor area of 6.11 square meters owned by the Plaintiff’s husband, and in B, 9.17 square meters with the total floor area of 9.17 square meters (1st 59.5 square meters, 2nd 39.67 square meters) owned by G. However, the B-story building with the total floor area of 110 square meters with the first floor and 28 square meters without permission was extended.

C. The Plaintiff, among the buildings located in the foregoing F and B, was operating 265.5 square meters as a place of business. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was found to have been operating 265 square meters without permission, exceeding 45.7 square meters in excess of the business reported area by the environmental sanitation and food sanitation inspector under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, who was dispatched after having filed a civil petition on July 31, 2013.

Accordingly, on August 26, 2013 after undergoing the prior notification procedure, the Defendant rendered an administrative disposition of business suspension seven days (from September 16, 2013 to September 22, 2013) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the area of the place of business and make a report of change pursuant to Articles 37(4) and 75(1)7 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit to revoke the disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff, but the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (this Court Decision 2013Gudan1755) and the Plaintiff’s appeal against the said judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2014Nu20742) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Du376177) became final and conclusive as is.

E. Accordingly, on May 18, 2015, the Defendant re-designated and notified the Plaintiff of the period of suspension of business that has not been executed due to a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of suspension of business or an application for suspension of execution, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the report on the change of the area of business expanded until June 18, 2015.