영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff has operated the lodging facility in the name of “C” in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-gu (hereinafter “instant telecom”).
B. On July 30, 2014, the chief of Sungnam Police Station notified the Defendant of the fact that “the Plaintiff, around July 23, 2014, assisted multiple customers to engage in sexual traffic at the instant cartel on or around July 22:30, 2014.”
C. The Defendant, upon the request of the Plaintiff, suspended the disposition until the result of the criminal trial on the Sungwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch branch was brought up, and the said court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million on November 20, 2014, on March 23, 2015, issued a disposition of business suspension two months (from April 23, 2015 to June 21, 2015) pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant disposition) for the foregoing reasons.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 6, Eul Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion is unlawful since the disposition of this case is excessively harsh and constitutes abuse of discretionary authority, considering various circumstances such as the active request to allow a woman who wants to engage in sexual traffic to engage in sexual traffic and the fact that there are circumstances arranging sexual traffic because of the refusal of active demand by the customer, the police officer induced the act of violation using the general public, the act of violation is just once, the act of violation is merely one time, the plaintiff's family's livelihood is difficult due to the suspension of business, and the plaintiff's return and reflects.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. The issue of whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms is attributable to the degree of infringement of public interest and the disposition by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.