beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.05.17 2017구단10923

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 who operates an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “Cjuk”.

B. On September 16, 2015, around 03:00, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of business suspension for the period of March 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff was convicted of a fine of 2 million won at the Seoul Central District Court due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. with respect to D's sexual traffic (similar sexual intercourse) and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 8, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) even though the Plaintiff was taking measures to prevent sexual traffic while operating an entertainment drinking club in the ordinary place, the Plaintiff committed the above act in light of the following: (b) it is difficult to see that D et al. did not know of the Plaintiff; (c) it is difficult to see that D et al.’s act was serious; and (d) the instant disposition exceeded the scope of discretionary power or abused discretionary power when it was abused when it was discontinued for three months.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.

In such cases, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal administrative rules.