1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B had been practically operating the instantns from around 1998, and on August 19, 2015, reported succession to the status of a business operator.

Around December 15, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for six months (from January 5, 2015 to July 3, 2015) on the ground that the instant female management officer violated the Public Health Control Act.

On July 23, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for three months (from October 11, 2013 to January 9, 2014) to B, and issued a disposition of business closure on July 16, 2014 on the ground that he/she operated his/her business during the period of business suspension. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission issued a disposition of business suspension six months (from January 5, 2015 to July 3, 2015) to B on December 15, 2014, which changed the disposition of business closure on September 29, 2014 to a disposition of business suspension for six months (from January 5, 2015 to July 3, 2015).

B. Around August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the wife B, was transferred from B and reported the succession to the status of the business operator.

C. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to close the place of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that “the instant female management officer engaged in business during the period of business suspension on March 29, 2015” to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B had no intent to conduct the business at the time of March 29, 2015, but, due to the ventilation, had been opened a door of the instant brigade and provided accommodation to the instant brigade with the drunk customer’s arbitrary entry. Therefore, there is no ground for disposition.

Furthermore, although B did not intend to engage in the business, it was discovered that drunk guests were arbitrarily admitted to the business, B and the Plaintiff support minor children and for their livelihood.