영업정지처분취소
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 a person who operated an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”) with the trade name “C” on the ground 1 and 2nd of Gangnam-gu Seoul from September 2016.
B. Around November 17, 2016, D, who worked as the so-called “business head of the instant entertainment drinking house,” was controlled on the ground that: (a) around 23:50 on the grounds that: (b) around November 17, 2016, D, who was found in the said entertainment drinking house, received KRW 200,000 from the said entertainment drinking house E with the price for sexual intercourse; and (c) the said entertainment drinking club employee F (G) had sexual intercourse under subparagraph 503 of the said entertainment drinking club, thereby engaging in the act of arranging sexual intercourse (hereinafter “instant arrangement”).
C. On June 12, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend the Plaintiff’s business for three months on the ground of the instant arrangement of sexual traffic (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) directed and supervised employees, such as the head of ordinary business, to prevent acts of arranging sexual traffic, such as arranging sexual traffic, etc. In order to prevent such acts, the Plaintiff did not have any participation in the said sexual traffic. The instant act of arranging sexual traffic was involved by D, the head of the business of “I,” which is an entertainment drinking house and a separate business establishment, and D merely allowed F and guest E to drink in the instant entertainment drinking house on the ground that there is insufficient space in the “I.” Therefore, there is justifiable reason to prevent the Plaintiff from performing the instant sexual traffic. In addition to the above circumstances, considering the fact that the instant act of arranging sexual traffic is basically related to the business of “I,” the instant disposition is within the scope of discretion.