1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 2015, while Nonparty B operated general restaurants in Seoul with the trade name of “D” (hereinafter in this case), Nonparty B was controlled by the police on the grounds that the act of arranging sexual traffic and the act of employing entertainment visitors around 22:20 on September 22, 2015, and was subject to a disposition of business suspension three months and fifteen days from September 22, 2015 (from October 23, 2015 to February 4, 2016).

B. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of business operator B.

C. Accordingly, on November 18, 2015, the Defendant revoked the disposition of the said disposition of the suspension of business against the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a disposition of the suspension of business of the Plaintiff three months (from December 4, 2015 to March 17, 2016) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) A was a person who was actually in charge of the instant business at the time when the instant business establishment without a reason for disposition was controlled by the police, but, upon the F’s request, E did not arrange sexual traffic with the customer, even though he left a female by the reporting room. 2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not violate the law, and that the Plaintiff’s economic situation is difficult, etc., the instant disposition constitutes a abuse of discretionary power by the Plaintiff’s private interest infringing on the public interest to be achieved, which constitutes a abuse of discretionary power.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 through 6 regarding the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, E may recognize the fact that, at the time of March 26, 2015, the instant business establishment was practically operated, and the G et al. allowed three female visitors, such as G et al., to provide entertainment with three guests, together with the F et al., and that G et al. received KRW 200,000,000 from F, and assisted G to provide entertainment with F.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. A punitive administrative disposition is imposed on the assertion of abuse of discretionary power.