1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs received a business license for an entertainment drinking house from the Defendant, and operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”) with the trade name “D” on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C underground.

B. On August 21, 2015, E, who served in the business of the instant entertainment drinking house, was placed in the police due to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (i.e., arranging sexual traffic) that “E, at around 22:40 on August 31, 2015, had an entertainment receptionist F and G drink drink drink drink with H and I, a guest, and broker on September 1, 2015,” but was charged with a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of lack of evidence by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on March 24, 2016.

C. On January 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s business-related E was engaged in arranging sexual traffic in the instant entertainment tavern around September 1, 2015; (b)” Article 4 of the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic Act; and (c) Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, the same year from February 16, 2016, for business suspension of three months pursuant to business suspension under Article 75

5. Disposition by no later than 15. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 12-1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Employees, such as E, who are business activities of the entertainment drinking club in this case, were not aware of the fact that H and I, who were customers, had been entertainment workers, had sexual intercourse with entertainment reception workers. Employees of the entertainment drinking club in this case, such as E, are merely merely engaging in sexual intercourse, and they did not engage in sexual intercourse and did not engage in any act related to sexual intercourse. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.