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 June 2002, the Plaintiff operated a mutual accommodation facility of “C” (hereinafter “instant accommodation facility”) in Seoul Northern-gu, Gangnam-gu.
B. On May 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff arranged sexual traffic between D and E in 105 units of the instant lodging establishment around January 20, 2017, around January 13, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 6, Eul's 2 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion ① forced customers with mental disorder to arrange sexual traffic; (b) the Plaintiff’s acquisition price is nonexistent; and (c) the instant disposition is highly likely to make the operation of the instant accommodation difficult due to the instant disposition; and (d) the instant disposition is beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition exceeds the scope of discretion under the social norms or abused discretionary power ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances.
In this case, even if the criteria for disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus, it is not effective externally to guarantee citizens or courts. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the above disposition criteria,
The disposition is legitimate as soon.