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

A. On September 26, 2001, the Plaintiff operated a security service business with a facility security business license from the Defendant.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke permission for facility security business on November 3, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Security Industry Act, such as allowing its security guards to exercise physical power in the corridor of the conference room for occupants of B Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Ground for Recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 3

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the security guards, separate from the security guards’ duties, only managed the principal’s claim on retirement allowances and unemployment benefits.

In addition, since security guards committed the above acts according to their own will, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the security guards engage in any service other than the permitted security service, or had them do any act deviating from the security service.

B. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness D's testimony.

1) Since 2004, the Plaintiff provided facility security services in the instant apartment. On December 31, 2014, the term of the security service contract was extended by the head of the instant apartment management office and the “the end of the month following the month in which a new security service company was selected.” 2) When E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was selected as a new security service company of the instant apartment, the head of the management office notified the Plaintiff on April 6, 2015 that the security service contract terminated by the end of four months.

However, the chief of the management office notifies E of the determination of successful bidder and the invalidity of the security service contract that the contract was concluded accordingly. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26354, Apr. 29, 2015>