영업소폐쇄처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From April 1, 2017, the Plaintiff had been running a lodging business (nicks) in the land lodging business (nicks) in the Manam-si, Sungnam-si, and the present trade name is “B”.
B. On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff was convicted of committing a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts), and the judgment became final and conclusive, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was convicted of engaging in sexual traffic, having received the total of KRW 35,000 and the total of KRW 20,000 from the control police officers who pretended to be customers; and (b) had provided guidance to the guest room to sexual intercourse; and (c)
(U.S. 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 925 decided October 4, 2018) Da.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of business suspension due to the arrangement of commercial sex acts discovered on April 3, 2017 even on June 8, 2017.
On May 17, 2019, the Defendant issued an order to close the place of business, the date of which was June 7, 2019, to the Plaintiff regarding the foregoing business.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) Order to close the place of business. The reason is as follows.
It is said that sexual traffic has been arranged twice by arranging sexual traffic to customers as described in the paragraph.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Since the police officer controlling the plaintiff's assertion is not the party to purchase the sex, the sexual traffic between the controlling police officer and the female cannot be conducted, the crime of violating the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. Act by arranging the sexual traffic cannot be established against the plaintiff.
Therefore, the disposition of this case on the ground of sexual traffic mediation is unlawful, and even if the grounds for the disposition are recognized, the order to close the place of business was excessively harsh and abused discretion, and it was first three months after the disposition of business suspension was issued, and the order to close the place of business was violated the principle of trust protection.
3. Determination of the legality of the disposition