beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for 45 days against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2017 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff is a person who operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking house”) with the trade name “C” on the first floor of Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “C”).
B. On November 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for 45 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, around May 28, 2017, arranged sexual traffic of D and guest E in the instant entertainment tavern around May 18, 2017.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 through 5, Eul's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D and E’s act of sexual traffic was conducted by both parties, and there was no arrangement, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff’s employee) arranged the said sexual traffic is unlawful.
B. Determination 1 on the non-existence of the grounds for disposition 1) Legal doctrine refers to the act of arranging or facilitating the convenience of sexual traffic between the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic. Thus, even if the parties intending to engage in sexual traffic do not have any more involvement by themselves, they must be placed in arranging to the extent that the parties can do so (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8808, Feb. 17, 2005). Therefore, if it is not proved that there was an act of arranging sexual traffic as above, a punitive measure cannot be taken on the premise of the act of arranging sexual traffic, unless it is proved that there was an act of arranging sexual traffic. In an appeal seeking revocation of an administrative disposition, the Defendant, who is the disposition authority claiming the legality of the disposition, bears the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984). 2).