beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.29 2015구단15

영업정지처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking house”) with the trade name “Cjuk store” in Busan Northern-gu B.

B. On June 11, 2014, the customer D, who found the instant entertainment tavern, demanded an employee E to engage in sexual traffic, and E had a female employee engage in sexual traffic, F, a female sexual traffic, arranged the said D and sexual traffic, and controlled the police.

C. On June 25, 2014, the head of the Busan Northern District Police Station requested the Defendant to take an administrative disposition on the ground that E mediated commercial sex acts, and the Defendant, following the hearing procedure, etc., applied Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff on the ground of violation of Article 4 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Traffic, Etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25799, Nov. 5, 2014>

On the other hand, on November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the disposition of the said suspension of business three months, and Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on December 16, 2014, changing the three months of the said suspension of business to 45 days. Accordingly, on January 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to change the said three months of business suspension to 44 days.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” that was mitigated in the initial disposition on November 5, 2014). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On the day of the instant case where there was no ground for disposition, the Plaintiff was not in the entertainment drinking house. On the day of the instant entertainment drinking house, there was only the fact that customers, who had been in the instant entertainment drinking house, joined entertainment reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception, and there