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 is operating a lodging facility with the trade name “C” in Busan Northern-gu B (hereinafter “instant place of business”). A part of a nursing room is used for residential purpose.

B. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend business operations for three months (from December 12, 2016 to March 11, 2017) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. at the instant place of business.

C. Since then, Article 11(2) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 508, Jul. 28, 2017) on the ground that the Plaintiff engaged in business during the period of

7.Ⅱ. 1. H.

Based on this item, on February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an order to close the place of business.

On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission for adjudication, and the said commission rendered a ruling to change the above order of closure to the disposition of business suspension for three months.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” for the suspension of business that was reduced in the closure order of the original place of business). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s 1, 6, Eul’s 1, 4-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not operate the business during the business suspension period, and the instant disposition did not exist, and even if the grounds for disposition exist, the instant disposition violated the principle of proportionality.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. (1) In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff operated the business during the period of business suspension, as the grounds for the instant disposition exist, since the Plaintiff is recognized as having operated the business in light of whether there exist grounds for disposition or not, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), Eul’s evidence Nos. 2-9, and

(A) The defendant is the business suspension period of the plaintiff.