2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that is engaged in international and domestic marriage brokerage business on the third floor of the Daejeon Middle-gu 00 building in the 00th century.

B. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 for a violation of the Marriage Brokers Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Marriage Business Act”) against criminal facts by inserting a photograph of the number of foreign women who are not related to the Plaintiff Company in the company’s Internet homepage from May 19, 2009 to October 9, 2009.

C. On January 18, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine in violation of the Marriage Brokers Act, and thus became disqualified pursuant to Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Marriage Brokers Act, and thus revoked the registration of the Plaintiff’s international marriage brokerage business pursuant to Article 18(1)2 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment 2] (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including Serial Nos. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary cause of the claim

Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act provides that "a person who was sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment for a violation of this Act, and for whom three years have not passed since the execution of the sentence was terminated or the non-execution thereof was made definite," shall be interpreted as one of the grounds for disqualification, notwithstanding the criminal records specified in subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article, which means a case where a person is sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment for a violation of this Act, even though the criminal records specified in subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article exist, it shall be interpreted as a case where a person is sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment for a violation of this Act. In addition, even if there is no criminal record specified in subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article, even if the plaintiff seems to fall under the grounds for disqualification under subparagraph

2) Preliminary Claim

If it is reasonable to interpret the meaning of Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act as argued by the Defendant, as shown by the Plaintiff, if only an administrative agency violates Article 12 (1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act, then only one month of business suspension is imposed pursuant to Article 18 (1) 12 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment 2]. On the other hand, if a criminal punishment is imposed due to detection by a judicial agency, the marriage brokerage business becomes disqualified pursuant to Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Attachment 2] of the Marriage Brokers Business Act. Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act is unconstitutional as it infringes on the Plaintiff’s constitutional property right contrary to the principle of equality under the Constitution, the principle of excessive prohibition, and is null and void.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

(c) Determination.

1) Determination as to the primary cause of claim

Article 6 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act provides for grounds for disqualification in the course of engaging in or engaging in the marriage brokerage business. For specific reasons, subparagraph 2 provides that a person in whose case two years have not passed since his/her imprisonment without labor or greater punishment was completely executed or exempted; subparagraph 3 provides that a person under the suspension of the execution of his/her imprisonment without labor or greater punishment as declared by a court; subparagraph 2 or 3 provides that a person under the suspension of the execution of his/her imprisonment without labor or greater punishment shall be subject to the provisions of this Act; Article 228, 1 of the Criminal Act; Article 287 through 294 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 5-2 and 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic; Article 5-2 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Children and Juveniles; Article 7-2 or 18 (4) of the Immigration Control Act shall not be subject to the execution of a fine or more punishment.

In light of the legislative purpose of the Marriage Brokers Act, the language and text of Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act, and the crimes listed in those provisions, as follows: (a) in addition to the crimes that are easily committed in the course of engaging in the marriage brokerage business and in particular in the course of engaging in the international marriage brokerage business, Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Act shall be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment in the case of other crimes under subparagraphs

Despite the fact that the term of suspension of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has not passed or the suspension of the execution of the execution of the sentence is under the period of suspension of the execution of the sentence, it is reasonable to interpret that the case of a specific crime constitutes grounds for disqualification even if a fine is imposed for a certain period of time. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion

2) Determination on the conjunctive cause

The proviso of Article 18(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act provides that "if an international marriage broker falls under any of the grounds for disqualification under Article 6 (1) (if an international marriage broker falls under any of the grounds for disqualification under Article 6), the registration shall be revoked." The registration shall be revoked in accordance with the case where an international marriage broker, like the Plaintiff, becomes disqualified under Article 6(4) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act by being sentenced to a fine in violation of the Marriage Brokers Business Act, on the ground that he/she violates the Marriage Brokers Business Act.

Article 6 (4) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act provides that "if a person is sentenced to a fine in violation of this Act, he/she is sentenced to a fine in violation of this Act" is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of equality under the Constitution and the principle of prohibition of excessive prohibition.

A) The Marriage Brokers Business Act was enacted for the purpose of contributing to the formation of a sound marriage culture by guiding and promoting the marriage brokerage business in a sound manner and by protecting users (Article 1). The marriage brokerage business Act provides for various matters to be observed by the marriage broker (Articles 3 and 4) and provides for various matters to be observed by the marriage broker, such as corrective orders (Article 17), suspension of operations (Article 18), closure measures (Article 19) and measures to be taken in the event that such matters to be observed are violated. In addition, the marriage brokerage business Act provides that criminal punishment may be imposed in the case of acts prescribed by the Marriage Brokers Business Act (Article 26). The legitimacy of the purpose and means of disqualification is recognized.

B) ① In the mid-200s, around the time when the Marriage Brokers Act was enacted, the number of international marriage has increased due to the change of human consciousness according to the age of globalization, the increase of foreign workers, and the increase of men who are not married with Korean women. Accordingly, international marriage brokers have been personality and behaviored accordingly. The damages caused by the disguised marriage, fraud marriage, and the provision of false information by marriage information companies have emerged as social issues due to the increase in the number of people, and the need to regulate them. ② Even if the marriage brokerage business of the same content and criminal punishment were imposed on the violation of the Marriage Brokers Business Act, this is different from the protected legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed as double punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1051, Nov. 30, 2007). < Amended by Act No. 8130, Mar. 1, 2007>

C) The existence of a violation of the principle of equality alleged by the Plaintiff may vary from the content of administrative disposition due to friendly circumstances where the same act was not revealed to the judicial authority. This is a matter of need to be decided by sharing information on the fact of detection by the competent administrative authority and the judicial authority, and it is difficult to regard such act as being treated differently without reasonable grounds, and it is difficult to view Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Marriage Brokerage Business Act as a violation of the principle of equality only due to the existence of such de facto inequality.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Marriage Brokers Act is unconstitutional is without merit. 3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims of this case are all dismissed due to the lack of grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Jae-il

Judges Lee Jae-sung

2) The crime of kidnapping and kidnapping

3) Aggravated punishment of kidnapping and kidnapping

4) See the reasons for proposing the legislation of the Marriage Brokers Business Act proposed on February 1, 2005 by 16 National Assembly members, such as Kim Jong-jin, etc.

Relevant statutes

4. Act on the Management of Marriage Brokers

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to creating a healthy marriage culture by guiding and fostering the marriage brokerage business in a sound manner and by protecting users.

Article 6 (Disqualifications)

None of the following persons may conduct or engage in the marriage brokerage business:

1. A minor, incompetent or quasi-incompetent, or a person declared bankrupt, but not yet reinstated;

2. When a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment imposed upon him/her has been completely executed (including cases where the execution thereof is deemed completed);

A person in whose case two years have not passed since he was exempted from miscellaneous execution;

3. A person who is under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment;

4. Notwithstanding subparagraphs 2 and 3, the specific crimes under this Act, Articles 228 and 287 through 294 of the Criminal Act, and the Specific Crimes Act.

Article 5-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, and the amusement business affecting the public morals;

The Regulation Act, the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, or Article 7-2 and 7 of the Immigration Control Act.

The execution of a sentence of a fine or heavier punishment (including a disposition of notification on penalty) for a violation of Article 18 (4) shall be terminated.

A person in whose case three years have not passed since the non-execution became final and conclusive;

Article 12 (Prohibition, etc. of False or Exaggerated Labeling and Advertising)

(1) A marriage broker shall promote discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of false or exaggerated state, race, gender, age, occupation, etc.

No indication or advertisement of likely contents shall be made.

Article 18 (Suspension of Business, etc.)

(1) Where a marriage broker falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall revoke the registration or one person:

An international marriage broker may order the suspension of business for a specified period not exceeding one year: Provided, That subparagraph 1, 2 or 2 shall apply to an international marriage broker.

In cases falling under subparagraph 18, registration shall be revoked.

1. If he/she reports or registers the marriage brokerage business by fraud or other improper means;

2. Where he/she becomes disqualified under Article 6: Provided, That in cases of a corporation, he/she is disqualified within one month;

The same shall not apply to the replacement of the officer.

12. Giving false or exaggerated discrimination on the grounds of national race, gender, age, occupation, etc., in violation of Article 12(1)

Where he/she indicates or advertises any content that is likely to instigate prejudice;

18. Where he/she fails to purchase surety insurance, in violation of Article 25;

(2) Detailed standards for administrative dispositions under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.

Article 26 (Penal Provisions)

(2) Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won:

4. Discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of false or exaggerated nature, or of national origin, race, gender, age, occupation, etc., in violation of Article 12(1).

a person who indicates or advertises any content that is likely to promote the

4. Enforcement Rule of the Marriage Brokerage Business Management Act

Article 12 (Criteria for Administrative Disposition)

Detailed criteria for administrative dispositions under Article 18 (2) of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 2.

[Attachment II] < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22490, Nov. 17, 2010>

Article 12 (Criteria for Administrative Dispositions)

2. Individual standards:

(Domestic: Domestic marriage brokerage business, International marriage brokerage business)

A person shall be appointed.