1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Article 37(4) and Article 71 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that D’s general restaurant business operator under the name of “C” in the Gu-U.S. Si B is a general restaurant business operator, on the ground that “D shall operate only within the reported business area, and if the business area is changed, it shall install a business facility outside the business place without taking such procedures.”

B. Notwithstanding the foregoing corrective order, the foregoing D’s defect in the business by installing a business facility outside the place of business reported on July 25, 2016, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition of business suspension seven days in accordance with the administrative disposition criteria under Article 75(1)17 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, as to D on August 18, 2016.

C. Although D filed an administrative appeal, it was dismissed on September 26, 2016. The Defendant, following the dismissal of the administrative appeal, notified that the period of business suspension of the restaurant was from October 24, 2016 to October 30, 2016.

On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the said restaurant from D, the former proprietor, and filed the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is permitted to operate outdoor business in some of the areas of the Gu/Si/Gun, the instant disposition is unreasonable, such as not allowing outdoor business to the restaurant of this case is contrary to equity.

B. (1) Taking into account the following circumstances: (a) each of the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 12 and 13 revealed by the overall purport of the pleadings; and (b) allow certain restrictions on restaurants within the specialized distance for food culture of the Gu and the establishment of a simple portable convenience facility, not fixed facilities, to some areas.