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. Since the Plaintiff reported on the succession to the status of a business operator on April 17, 2006, the Plaintiff operated the public bath business under the trade name called “E” (hereinafter only referred to as “E”) in Busan B, C, and D.
B. On October 28, 2019, around 14:30 on October 28, 2019, F, an employee of the Plaintiff, recorded the inside of a slope room using a mobile phone or other device to arrest the thief (hereinafter “instant violation”), and discovered the fact to the police during the process of reporting and confirming the theft.
C. On October 29, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant violation by the head of the Busan Coast Guard, following the prior procedure, and rendered a disposition of business suspension for the period of one month from December 11, 2019 to January 9, 2020 (hereinafter “instant initial disposition”). D.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the original disposition of this case with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission.
The Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on January 21, 2020 that "the business suspension of an appellee against the petitioner on November 20, 2019 shall be changed to the business suspension of 15 days."
E. According to the above ruling, the defendant changed the original disposition of this case from February 17, 2020 to March 2, 2020 by the business suspension for 15 days from February 17, 2020 to March 2, 2020
(2) Each description of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, including the remaining parts of the original disposition and the changed disposition
2. The legality of the instant disposition
A. The images taken by F, an employee of the Plaintiff, using a camera, etc., of the Plaintiff’s 1 disposition ground, do not constitute photographing the body of a person who could cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame because the victim cannot be specified, and the said employee is not the said images.