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 June 3, 1994, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the business operator of the Plaintiff’s “Dcafeteria” in Busan Dong-gu’s operation, and changed its trade name to E.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”). B. The Plaintiff’s business place

In the Busan Dong-gu, Busan, where the instant business establishment is located, there was one-story wooden building with the total floor area of 6.11 square meters owned by the Plaintiff’s husband, and in B, 9.17 square meters with the total floor area of 9.17 square meters (1st 59.5 square meters, 2nd 39.67 square meters) owned by G. However, the B-story building with the total floor area of 110 square meters with the first floor and 28 square meters without permission was extended.

C. The Plaintiff, among the buildings located in the foregoing F and B, was operating 265.5 square meters as a place of business. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was found to have been operating 265 square meters without permission, exceeding 45.7 square meters in excess of the business reported area by the environmental sanitation and food sanitation inspector under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, who was dispatched after having filed a civil petition on July 31, 2013.

Accordingly, on August 26, 2013, the Defendant issued an administrative disposition on seven days of business suspension (from September 16, 2013 to September 22, 2013) pursuant to Articles 37(4) and 75(1)7 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not change the area of the place of business and make a report on the change thereof, and accordingly, the Defendant issued a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (this Court Decision 2013Gudan1755), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s appeal against the said judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2014Nu20742) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Du37617) were all dismissed.

E. Accordingly, on May 18, 2015, the Defendant re-designated and notified the Plaintiff of five days of business suspension which was not executed due to a lawsuit seeking revocation of business suspension or an application for suspension of execution, etc., and provided the Plaintiff with information on the change of the size of the business place expanded until June 18, 2015.

F. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.