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. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the business to the Defendant, and operated a mutual accommodation (hereinafter “C”) of “C” in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for three months on the ground that the Plaintiff had arranged sexual traffic at the instant establishment.
B. On April 24, 2017, the chief of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Police Station notified the Defendant of the fact that he/she arranged sexual traffic at the instant establishment on April 24, 2017. On November 2, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to close the place of business of the instant establishment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that he/she arranged sexual traffic (the second violation) at the instant establishment on April 24, 2017.
C. Meanwhile, on April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff’s husband D was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 200,12355) on the ground of the criminal fact that “Around April 24, 2017, two police officers, who were the most vulnerable to customers, received a total of KRW 80,00,000 from two police officers, and arranged sexual traffic by bringing into the two women of sexual traffic,” and the summary order became final and conclusive on November 8, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not intend to act as a broker for sexual traffic but failed to make a repeated demand of the police officers who arranged sexual traffic, which became aware of on the same day, the intent of crime was induced by the crackdown by an investigative agency, and that the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant business that was purchased by investing the entire property and maintaining livelihood, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful because it is too harsh to the extent of excessive discretion and abuse of discretion.
B. Article 11 of the former Public Health Control Act (Amended by Act No. 15184, Dec. 12, 2017) (1) (amended by Act No. 15184, Dec. 12, 201).