영업허가취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff operates an entertainment tavern (hereinafter referred to as “instant entertainment tavern”) with the trade name “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, 2 and 3 floors.
The Defendant issued a disposition revoking permission to operate the instant entertainment tavern business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2016, pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the instant entertainment tavern had been engaged in arranging sexual traffic on two occasions, including August 21, 2015 and June 17, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 (including identification numbers) and the whole purport of the argument in this case is legitimate, and the disposition in this case is legitimate. Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act No. 15(e) of the Food Sanitation Act.
(f) Item (f) and (f) (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of this case") provide that "if the violation is due to minor or minor negligence among the violations, or minor negligence without intention, or if the violation is subject to a judgment of the court of suspension of sentence with respect to the relevant violation, the revocation of the business may be mitigated within the scope of not less than three months of the suspension of business."
However, the act of arranging sexual traffic by the plaintiff's employees is merely an act of personal deviation, and the plaintiff did not know about the act of arranging sexual traffic.
Therefore, the Plaintiff may be sentenced to a suspended sentence in a criminal case related thereto (Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan7514, hereinafter “related criminal case”), which constitutes grounds for mitigation prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the instant case.
Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.
Judgment
Whether the punitive administrative disposition has deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms is the reason for the disposition.