1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending business against the Plaintiff on July 26, 2016 is revoked for three months.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a lodging establishment (hereinafter “instant lodging establishment”) with the trade name “C” in the Gulsi City B.

B. On July 1, 2016, the head of the Guri-gu Police Station notified the Defendant of an administrative disposition request to the effect that “A worker D of the Plaintiff was engaged in commercial sex acts upon the request of the police officer who disguisedd with customers to control at the accommodation of this case on June 13, 2016.” On July 26, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for a violation of Article 11(1) of the Public Health Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On the other hand, on October 20, 2016, as to the charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. against the Plaintiff, the prosecutor issued a disposition without suspicion on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided education to ordinary employees D not to arrange commercial sex acts, and was locked from his room inside the carbr, but D was under the control of sexual sex acts without permission.” The above D also stated to the effect that it was against the Plaintiff’s desire to receive education from the Plaintiff, and that it was against the Plaintiff’s act of sexual traffic without permission, and that it was consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent the violation of D.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff should not arrange sexual traffic to ordinary employees, and the violation of this case was committed solely by D for his own interest. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care and supervision, and therefore, there was a justifiable reason not to mislead the plaintiff as a business operator. The violation of this case was caused by a police officer's illegal naval investigation and procedure.