1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs received permission from the Defendant for the business of “C” entertainment tavern (Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D).

On February 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months (from February 24 to May 24, 2015) of arranging sexual traffic in “C” (on October 16, 2014) against the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter “original disposition”). On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against the original disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on February 17, 2015, and were subject to a stay of execution on February 17, 2015, but all of the administrative appeals applications were dismissed on June 15, 2015.

Accordingly, on July 2, 2015, the Defendant changed the period of business suspension of the original disposition from July 20, 2015 to October 17, 2015, and notified the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, Eul evidence No. 3-1, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs asserted that the act of arranging sexual traffic was not performed in “C”, and the Plaintiffs were unaware of this.

The plaintiffs are responsible for the management.

Even if the disposition of this case is only illegal since it constitutes abuse of discretionary power.

B. Sanction against a violation of the administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of the administrative law in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Thus, a sanction may be imposed without intention or negligence on the violator, unless there exists any justifiable reason not to cause a breach of the duty, such as a circumstance that the violator does not have knowledge of his/her duty, or a circumstance where the performance of his/her duty cannot be expected to be anticipated, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du15139, Apr. 9, 2015; 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012). Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms is a ground for disposition.