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. The Plaintiff is a person who operates an entertainment drinking house with the trade name “C” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. On March 8, 2016, around 21:52, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of business suspension for the period of November 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Around March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was controlled on the grounds that E had employees D, F and G, which caused entertainment visitors, engaged in H and I sexual intercourse (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On the other hand, on May 24, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a summary order of KRW 7 million as a crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. in relation to the above acts, and the said summary order became final and conclusive.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) although the Plaintiff did not take part in the act of arranging sexual traffic without being punished as an employee D and E as a co-principal, the Plaintiff was a person who operated a shop with a business license and was punished as a sole principal offender in pursuit of negligence; (b) the instant disposition of this case for three months of business suspension permitted by the Act is excessive; (c) employee D and E are not the Plaintiff’s regular employees but those who had been temporarily engaged in the business for three months; and (d) it is difficult to see the degree of violation; and (c) when suspending business for three months, the instant disposition was abused by exceeding the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power.
B. 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 that an individual would suffer 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.