1. A corrective order issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 6, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The building register (referring to the building register from the time of the instant business report to the time of the instant disposition, as seen below; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the building register of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the two-story above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) is indicated as the 1st floor area of 95.21 square meters, and the 2nd floor area of 62.15 square meters.

However, the actual area of the above second floor is on approximately 95.21 square meters as in the first floor.

B. As such, the reason why the actual area of the second floor of the instant building is about 3.06 square meters ( approximately 95.21 square meters - 62.15 square meters) compared to the area on the building ledger is because, among the above two floors, the inside part of the red point line and the blue point line among the drawings under the above two floors (a total area is about 33.06 square meters; hereinafter referred to as the “instant main part”) are omitted.

(3) Non-registered area (2)

C. On April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the part of the first floor and the second floor of the instant building from D, the owner of the entire second floor, and on May 6, 2016, the Plaintiff reported a general restaurant business (hereinafter “instant business report”) with the location of the instant building as “second floor of the instant building” pursuant to Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act as “the second floor of the instant building”; and on May 6, 2016, the Plaintiff reported a general restaurant business (hereinafter “instant business report”) with the area of the place of business as “62.15 square meters” as the same as the building ledger, and thereafter, operated a general restaurant business on the second floor of the

After conducting a facility investigation on June 8, 2016 on the instant place of business, the Defendant is aware that the actual area of the instant place of business reaches approximately 95.21 square meters, which is larger than 62.15 square meters as indicated in the business report. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “the Plaintiff has extended the instant part without permission and changed the area of the instant place of business from approximately 62.15 square meters to approximately 95.21 square meters; and (b) has failed to file a report thereon with the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act; (c) Article 75(1)7 of the Food Sanitation Act; and (d) Article 1300 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Food Sanitation Act.”