The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C” on the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, 1, and 2 underground level.

B. On May 11, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on June 12, 2020, on the ground that “the Plaintiff employed entertainment workers at the instant business establishment and caused them to provide entertainment services” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not allow the Plaintiff to employ entertainment workers and to provide entertainment service, and there is no justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not cause the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know the specific circumstances during which the entertainment service provider provided entertainment service. Thus, there is no ground for disposition. 2) Even if the grounds for disposition are recognized, the instant disposition is excessive daily and is contrary to the principle of proportionality in a situation where the Plaintiff’s violation is extremely excessive and difficult management, and thus, it deviates from or abused discretion.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 4 with regard to the existence of the grounds for disposition in the instant case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was found to employ entertainment reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception

Recognizing that the Plaintiff employed entertainment workers at the instant establishment and caused them to provide entertainment services, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff did not neglect his/her duty to provide entertainment services.

The plaintiff.