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 April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff reported the succession to the status of the Defendant on April 3, 2019 with respect to the entertainment tavern (hereinafter “the entertainment tavern in this case”) with the trade name “E” located in C and 6 stories, the business owner of B, and thereafter operates the entertainment tavern in this case.
B. On April 16, 2019, the Gyeonggi-do Local Police Agency: (a) the Defendant, the operator of the instant entertainment tavern from April 22, 2019 to April 23:15, 2019, notified the Defendant of an administrative disposition to the effect that, on the condition that: (b) the Defendant received cash KRW 600,000,00, including both the instant entertainment tavern from April 2, 2019 to April 22:30; (c) commercial sex acts; and (d) commercial sex acts; (d) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts; and (e) commercial sex acts.
C. On August 8, 2019, the Defendant: (a) succeeded to the status of the proprietor of the instant entertainment bars from B for three months on the ground that the instant entertainment bars engaged in sexual intercourse arrangement; and (b) the instant disposition taken by the Defendant is “the instant disposition” for three months.
(D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal on December 9, 2019. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries of Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 8, 13, 14, and 17, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff, who had no reason to dispose of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, took over the instant entertainment tavern on April 3, 2019, and the entertainment tavern in the instant case from the transferor B at the time, as of that time, was engaged in