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 reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition under Paragraph 2 below to the judgment on the matters that the plaintiff asserts additionally in the trial concerning the assertion of abuse of discretionary power, and therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge equivalent to 70% of the operating profit in the previous year by calculating the penalty surcharge based on the previous year’s sales rather than the operating profit even though the external sales revenue in the case of operating franchise business as shown by the Plaintiff are not high, is an abuse of discretionary power against the principle of equity or the principle of proportionality.

B. In light of the determination, Article 82 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that a penalty surcharge of not more than 200 million won may be imposed in lieu of a disposition of business suspension under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the amount of a penalty surcharge of not more than 200 million won depending on the type, degree, etc. of an offense subject to the penalty surcharge and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the delegation of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 53 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides for the calculation standards of penalty surcharges imposed in lieu of a disposition of business suspension, etc.

The instant disposition is a disposition that deviates from or abused discretion as it imposes penalty surcharges on the basis of the total sales amount for the year immediately preceding the year in which the date of the disposition falls, in accordance with the criteria for calculating penalty surcharges under the above Food Sanitation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.