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 company that conducts housing management service business, facilities management service business, etc. established on August 26, 2002.

The Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) is to operate the guard business directly and to convert the guard business into the method entrusted to the guard service company, and publicly announce the bidding of the guard service company. The Plaintiff participated in the bidding procedure of the instant apartment security service company and won the bid as the guard service company on August 30, 2017.

B. On September 1, 2017, the following day after concluding a security service contract with the instant apartment on the date of successful bid, in order to ensure that there is no gap in security service, the Plaintiff entered into a security service contract with the instant apartment and submitted a report on the placement of facility security guards to the Seodaemun Police Station after employing B with criminal punishment power as security guards belonging to the Plaintiff around September 7, 2017.

C. On December 26, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 10(3) of the Security Services Industry Act by employing or having a disqualified person as security guards, the Defendant issued a disposition of reduction of 1/2 (from January 15, 2018 to January 29, 2018) and disposition of imposition of fines for negligence (hereinafter “instant disposition of business suspension disputing the Plaintiff’s illegality”) for one month of business suspension that prohibits the Plaintiff from entering into a new contract within the jurisdiction of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 15, and Eul No. 8, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. According to Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Security Services Industry Act, the chief of the competent police station, which is the Plaintiff’s competent police station, provided that when a security business entity requested criminal records to employ security guards, the chief of the competent police station shall inquire within one day. However, the chief of the Geumcheon Police station, which is the Plaintiff’s competent police station, provided the Plaintiff with criminal records about B after seven days after the date when the civil petition was filed.