영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is operating a danran bar with a trade name “C” (hereinafter referred to as “instant main shop”) in the Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City B and the 1st underground floor.
On April 17, 2018, at the instant main point, it was discovered that, around 20:08, female employees D (e.g., 59 years of age; hereinafter referred to as “nivers”) was seated on the tables of E (hereinafter referred to as “instant customers”) that they are customers, and then drinking, and singing as soon as possible, and other entertainment activities of customers (hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”).
On January 17, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Plaintiff to a fine of KRW 500,000 (2018 High Court Decision 201Da2420) for the criminal facts that “the female employee’s act of violation in this case was promoted or implied, thereby violating the business operator’s obligation” (No. 2018 High Court Decision 200). The above judgment was finalized on January 25, 2019.
On February 22, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff for one month on the ground of the instant violation.
On May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said administrative appeals commission rendered a ruling to change the business suspension of one month to the business suspension of 20 days on the ground that “the degree of the instant violation is not excessive when considering the amount of fine, etc.”
(2) At the time of the instant violation, the Plaintiff did not have the main points of the instant disposition at the time of the instant violation of the purport of the entire pleadings, as to whether the instant disposition was lawful, and the instant customer demanded a female employee to sit on the table table on several occasions, and the female employee did not have any choice but have any choice but to sit on the table table, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff.
In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff.