logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.06 2014구단5987
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is running a lodging business (hereinafter “instant business”) with the trade name “C,” from the 1-8th of the Goyang-dong-gu, Manyang-si, Manyang-si.

On January 15, 2014, around 23:29, the Yongsan Police Station: (a) conspired with the instant entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “E”) on the first floor of the Goyang-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”); (b) discovered that the instant entertainment drinking club business establishment was engaged in sexual traffic and aiding and abetting (hereinafter “instant violation”) with a content that customers would receive a substitute fee of KRW 60,000 per capita from the instant entertainment drinking club, and subsequently, notified the Defendant on March 19, 2015, on the ground that the instant violation was committed by the Defendant on July 24, 2014 through September 21, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the other hand, although the Plaintiff was indicted on the ground of the instant violation, on July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-guilty (Evidence of Evidence). G, the president of the monthly salary class and the former president of the instant business establishment, was indicted on the ground of the instant violation, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2015, upon being sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million each of the instant violations.

(F) The grounds for recognition are without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 11 through 13, Eul's 1 through 7 (including partial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 11(1) of the Public Health Control Act requires that the “public health business entity” violated the relevant statutes. As can be seen, the Plaintiff, a public health business entity, was subject to the disposition of non-guilty due to lack of evidence, was not guilty, and even if F and G committed the instant offense, they are not public health business entities.

arrow