Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, upon obtaining permission from the Defendant to engage in entertainment tavern business as prescribed by the Food Sanitation Act, operates an entertainment tavern business (hereinafter “instant business”) under the trade name, namely, “Cjuk” on the first floor of Busan B B from that time.

B. On May 13, 2019, the head of Busan Coast Guard notified the Defendant of the control of sexual traffic brokerage and investigation results on March 20, 2019 at the instant establishment.

C. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the following criminal facts (Seoul District Court Decision 2019No3467 Decided October 16, 2019), and the appeal against the above judgment was dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive as it is, due to the dismissal of the appeal against the above judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2019No3467 Decided June 12, 2020).

The Defendant:

B. A person who operates an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of “C” on the first basement level.

A person is not allowed to arrange commercial sex acts. On March 20, 2019, the defendant received a total of 4,50,000 won (1,50,000 won) including commercial sex acts from D (public interest reporters) who found him/her as a customer, and assisted commercial sex acts by guiding a female employee E who works for the said entertainment drinking house to have sexual intercourse with D.

On June 30, 2020, on the ground that the Defendant violated the Act on the Punishment of Acts such as Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, etc., the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for three months against the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on August 25, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is as follows: (a) the instant case is deemed to be a customer for the purpose of making compensation for reporting; and (b) by D having entered the instant business.