과징금부과처분취소
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 June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff has operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant main shop”) with the trade name “C” on the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s B and the first underground floor.
B. On December 1, 2014, the head of the Dobong-gu Seoul Provincial Police Station notified the head of the Dobong-gu Public Health Center of the administration of the “the head of the sales division of the instant main office of the instant main office of the brokerage of sexual traffic” (hereinafter “instant violation”) to female employees around October 28, 2014.
C. Around December 4, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the violation of Article 4 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. (hereinafter “the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts”) and Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act and notified the Plaintiff of the submission of opinions.
On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written statement to the effect that, on March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff would request the Defendant to defer an administrative disposition until the result of the case disposition by the prosecution, and on March 23, 2015, a written statement to the effect that, in lieu of a penalty surcharge of one month and fifteen days of business suspension,
E. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition on March 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) ordering the Plaintiff to pay a penalty surcharge of KRW 19,80,000 in lieu of a penalty surcharge of KRW 15,00 in lieu of a business suspension order
(f) On the other hand, the instant principal employee D was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on March 2, 2015 for the crime of arranging sexual traffic. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap, 1, 2, 3, 7, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1D rejected a police officer’s demand to arrange sexual traffic, which pretended to customers.
Nevertheless, the control police officer's demand to arrange sexual traffic has been made with strong help in finding and business again, and D did not overcome the suspicions and requested exceptionally to female businesses to arrange sexual traffic.
3.2