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 operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name of “Korea” located in the 294, 2, and 3th (Trainingdong, diesel sgeons) of Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon.

B. The Plaintiff was issued a corrective order on October 22, 2014 and a penalty surcharge of KRW 10,780,000 in lieu of the seven days of business suspension on June 25, 2015, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not change the area of its business and did not report the change.

C. On April 14, 2016, the Defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff, discovered a violation that did not report the change of the size of the place of business (third-party violation) by using a kitchen of approximately 282 square meters on three stories, which is a place other than the area reported to the Plaintiff’s business, in the business activity, approximately 46.38 square meters of three stories, and approximately 156.64 square meters of three stories, in the business activity. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension 15 days against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 27, 2016.

E. On July 5, 2016, according to the above dismissal ruling, the Defendant re-notificationed the instant disposition by specifying the period of suspension of business from July 11, 2016 to July 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In order to simplify the size of the business site expanded by the Plaintiff’s assertion, it should be closed, but it was not closed due to the pre-sale place for preliminary correspondence, etc. The Plaintiff left the building without being used intentionally, and sought a scheme for legality in consultation with the Defendant rather than using it intentionally. The instant disposition makes it difficult for 70 employees to live in the instant business place to recover even if the Plaintiff could not recover.