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. From January 24, 2003, the Plaintiff operated a lodging facility with the trade name called “C Inn” (hereinafter “Inn”) in Nam-gu, Busan.
B. On May 22, 2015, the head of Busan Southern Police Station notified the Defendant that “the Plaintiff arranged sexual traffic at around 01:40 on May 21, 2015.”
C. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to suspend business operations for three months (from September 7, 2015 to December 5, 2015) in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the instant inns committed an act of arranging sexual traffic, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”). D.
On October 20, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. On November 20, 2015, the Busan Metropolitan Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that the original disposition was changed to the disposition of business suspension for two months, and the defendant issued an order to change the business suspension for two months (from November 23, 2015 to January 21, 2016) to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2015, according to the above ruling.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was reduced by the said judgment on August 20, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) rejected the demand of the police officer for arranging sexual traffic by the police officer who pretended to customers at the time of the instant violation on several occasions. However, the Plaintiff was forced to engage in sexual traffic without any choice due to the force of the enforcement officer. Such naval control is illegal as an investigation method that causes a criminal intent to a person who does not have criminal intent, and the instant disposition based on illegal naval control is also illegal. 2) The instant disposition is also unlawful.