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 November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the operator of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (First floor in the earth) from Nonparty B.

B. On March 22, 2018, the fact that the instant restaurant did not report any change (the primary violation) despite the expansion of its business site size of 48 square meters was discovered, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to correct the said violation pursuant to Article 71 of the Food Sanitation Act on April 17, 2018.

C. As the Plaintiff did not correct the above violation, the Defendant did not report on the Plaintiff on June 4, 2018, despite the change in the size of the business of the instant restaurant.

(2) On the grounds of the latter part of Article 37(4), Article 75(1)7, and Article 82 of the Food Sanitation Act, a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,290,00 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was imposed in lieu of seven days of business suspension under Article 37(4) of the Food Sanitation Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) in violation of the principle of the protection of trust succeeded to the status of the restaurant operator of this case from B on November 15, 2012. While the size of the restaurant of this case was expanded than that initially reported, the Plaintiff did not report any changes to that effect until it was succeeded to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not know of the violation before the disposition of this case was taken. In addition, the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, where the restaurant of this case was located, was a downtown where the old building was concentrated, and the Defendant impliedd to operate the business by expanding the area of the place of business without reporting. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful against the principle of the protection of trust. 2) The Plaintiff’s deviation from the position of the restaurant of this case succeeded to the status of the restaurant operator of this case.