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”) in the name of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the first floor in the name of “C”.

B. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order for the first violation of Article 75 and Article 82 of the Food Sanitation Act against the Plaintiff, and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Defendant did not without permission expand the area of the instant business establishment, such as the establishment of a two-story business establishment, other than the reported business establishment (hereinafter “the first violation of this case”).

(hereinafter “First Disposition”). In addition, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to correct the violation by January 27, 2015.

C. However, on February 24, 2015, the Defendant still discovered that the Plaintiff did not report the change without permission by expanding the area of the place of business of the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant secondary violation”). On March 11, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,400,000 in lieu of the seven days of business suspension corresponding to the secondary violation, by applying Articles 75 and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on March 11, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second disposition”) D.

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant second disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 29, 2015.

2. Whether the second disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Ⅱ The individual standard “the second violation” applies to cases where the facts of the second violation are different from the facts of the second violation, and the Plaintiff did not restore the status at the time of the first violation to its original state, but did not constitute a new violation.

Therefore, applying "the second violation" of the above criteria to the second violation of this case is a statute on "the second violation of the above criteria."