1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was, on October 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for two months by applying Article 44(2) and Article 75 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 12719, May 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Food Sanitation Act”) and Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1080, May 9, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act”) to the Plaintiff, who operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the name of “C” in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition, and on November 28, 2014, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission made a ruling changing the above disposition to 40 days of business suspension.

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The key issue of this case is whether the instant disposition is illegal as it deviates from or abused discretion.

B. The court of first instance’s judgment: ① Article 75(4) of the former Food Sanitation Act; and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

I. General standards under subparagraph 15 (e) and (e) of this Article;

Ⅱ Individual Standards

3. According to subparagraph 11 (d) of the food service business, in the case of the first violation of the business suspension period in the case of the second violation of the business suspension period in the case of the second violation of the business suspension period, and in the case of the minor violation or minor negligence, the disposition may be mitigated within the scope of 1/2 of the suspension period. The defendant issued a disposition against the plaintiff in accordance with the above criteria for two months of business suspension. This was reduced for 40 days according to the ruling of the Ulsan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. This was partly taken into account in the process, and the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff were partly considered in the process, and ② the former Food Sanitation Act prevents a food service business operator from providing alcoholic beverages