(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.06 2016구단43



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 August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff is operating a dynasium (hereinafter “instant establishment”) with the trade name “C” in Busan Seo-gu, Busan.

B. At around 23:00 on September 29, 2015, D, who operated the instant establishment on behalf of the Plaintiff, had four female workers provide entertainment services to provide entertainment services to customers by drinking alcoholic beverages and singing (hereinafter “the instant entertainment services”). Around September 29, 2015, D, who operated the instant establishment on behalf of the Plaintiff, discovered the instant entertainment services by police officers belonging to the Busan Jinjin Police Station.

C. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month (from November 23, 2015 to December 22, 2015) by applying Articles 75 and 44 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “the first disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff provided the instant entertainment at the instant establishment.

On December 22, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. On January 6, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of the original disposition to order the suspension of business for 20 days (from January 13, 2016 to February 1, 2016).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” for the disposition of suspension of business as of November 6, 2015, which was reduced to 20 days by the above judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 10, Eul’s evidence No. 3-1, Eul’s evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Eul’s evidence No. 5-1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 had been decided to suspend the enforcement of the disposition by the time the administrative appeal procedure, which was conducted by the Plaintiff, until the ruling was rendered. However, on December 22, 2015, a ruling was rendered to change the original disposition to the 20-day disposition of business suspension. Thus, from that point of time,