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 operates “C”, a lodging establishment located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, (hereinafter “the instant telecom”). The change in the name of the business of the instant telecom, etc. is as follows.
Plaintiff D in the business name from December 21, 2002 to October 30, 2009 from October 30, 2009 to October 6, 2010 to October 6, 2010.
B. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant was notified of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. with the purport that “D has arranged sexual traffic around July 22, 2015,” which was run by the Plaintiff from the head of the Daegu East Police Station.
C. Accordingly, on October 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition ordering the suspension of business for three months in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff, who is a business operator of the instant franchise, on the ground that he/she committed “act of arranging sexual traffic” (hereinafter “instant act”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 1, Eul No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake of facts is unreasonable to impose liability on the Plaintiff for the disposition of suspension of business on the ground that the Plaintiff did not instruct or neglect the arrangement of commercial sex acts against D because D unrelated to the Plaintiff did not know of the Plaintiff.
(2) The control over the instant violation of the Act by a police officer is illegal as a result of the police officer’s naval investigation.
(3) In light of various circumstances, including the fact that the instant violation was not caused under the Plaintiff’s instruction or recognition, and the Plaintiff is living in the course of operating the instant cartel, and the Plaintiff suffers from irrecoverable economic loss when the disposition of suspension of business is executed, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.
(b) relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;