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 a corporation that registered credit business pursuant to the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”); and its Enforcement Decree is “Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act”).

B. On August 14, 2012, Seoul Eastern District Court (2012No710) rendered a decision suspending the sentence of a fine of one million won to the above B pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on the ground that B, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, threatened his/her family members living together with the debtor with respect to the debt collection in early September 201, was in violation of Article 9(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the said decision became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On December 6, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending the entire business against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Credit Business Act for six months on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 9 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by assault, threat, and deceptive scheme with respect to debt collection.

(2) Article 11 of the Fair Debt Collection Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Jan. 1, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “The imposition of a fine for negligence on the same day shall be imposed, but the imposition of the fine for negligence shall not be imposed in a separate proceeding in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, the issue of this case is not the issue of this case.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for disposition (A) disposition of this case is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff, a debt collector, threatened the debtor through his employee, etc., but the Plaintiff’s representative C did not have threatened the debtor, but rather, was the result of the investigation by the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors’ Office.