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 restaurant”) in the name of “C” in racing-si.

B. On February 28, 2017, the Defendant inspected sanitation related to the instant restaurant on February 28, 2017 to investigate the cause of food poisoning and the environment, and there was a little of 1 rank (1.5L out of the capacity of 1.8L, hereinafter “instant protocol”) in which the circulation period for the name of the instant restaurant was expired, including the name of the product, and the distribution period, until November 14, 2015.

C. Accordingly, on March 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) stored the Plaintiff for cooking the instant midwifery for which the circulation period expired; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, “within 15 days of business suspension” refers to the instant disposition.

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not a custody for cooking purposes, but is placed in a position to dismiss employees or close down a place of business, and the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion, considering the above disadvantage, etc.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition Nos. 2 and 4, the judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant had been kept in the food materials warehouse of the instant restaurant at the time of conducting a sanitary inspection; and (b) there was no indication that the Defendant would specially be discarded; and (c) the Plaintiff purchased new products identical to the instant cooking fees for the purpose of cooking food.

According to the above facts of recognition, the fees of this case are paid.