영업정지처분취소
1. The disposition of business suspension rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs on April 11, 2014 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. On January 14, 2014, Plaintiff A reported to succeed to the status of the proprietor of the entertainment tavern E (hereinafter “E”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) from Plaintiff C and Plaintiff B on February 20, 2014, and obtained a business license jointly from the Plaintiffs on February 20, 2014, and on April 11, 2014, the Defendant made a disposition of business suspension of one month under the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the instant business establishment constituted sexual traffic brokerage (hereinafter “instant offense”) on November 4, 2013 at the instant business establishment, on the grounds that there was no dispute between the respective parties, or that it is recognized in accordance with the evidence Nos. 5 and 6.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant violation was committed by F, etc. in charge of practice, which is not a former business operator C, and therefore, there was no violation of the Food Sanitation Act, which is intended for “business operator.” The Plaintiffs did not know at the time of the acquisition of the instant business establishment, and did not have been notified by the public official in charge at the time of reporting the succession to the status of the business operator, and there was no subsequent notification from the public official in charge at the time of reporting the succession to the status of the business operator. As such, the effect of
(2) The Defendant violated the Administrative Procedures Act as it did not provide an opportunity to submit opinions under the Administrative Procedures Act, such as prior notice or hearing procedure, to the Plaintiffs prior to the instant disposition.
(3) It is against the principle of proportionality to prevent the Plaintiffs from running their business for one month on the ground of the violation of the former business operator’s laws and regulations because they did not have any three months since they had actually commenced their business.
B. (1) Prior to the fact of finding the determination of the assertion of substantive defects, the following facts are added to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence, and witness G testimony.