beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of a veterinary hospital to the Defendant, and employed E/F without a veterinarian’s license, including a person operating “C animal hospital” in Busan District District B, a veterinarian, etc.
B. On February 25, 2016, at the hospital operated by the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff’s hospital, the relevant organic dog 1ma, etc. was conducted, such as, inter alia, flexible removal, scaming, etc. (hereinafter “the instant Scheduleing”).
C. On April 18, 2016, Busan District Prosecutors' Office imposed suspension of indictment on D and F on the violation of the Veterinarians Act that "D has instigated F, other than a veterinarian, to engage in the instant procedures under the Veterinarians Act, and F, to engage in the said conduct." On the other hand, the violation of the Animal Protection Act, which committed animal testing on a abandoned animal, was subject to a disposition for lack of evidence.
On May 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for three months (from July 1, 2016 to September 28, 2016) pursuant to Article 33 Subparag. 2 of the Veterinarians (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had an unqualified person engage in the instant youthing act, which is a medical treatment act.
E. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the business suspension as above with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling stating that “The Plaintiff was found to have violated the Veterinarians Act, but the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspension of indictment on this matter, and the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspension of indictment on this matter, and there was no harm to food-type health, and disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff and its employees due to the business suspension.”
(F) Meanwhile, D and F are the Constitutional Court Decision 2016Hun-Ma576, the indictment of which is suspended.