1. On July 10, 2017, the Defendant’s order to close the place of business against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B leased a building located in Gangnam-si D from C, and conducted accommodation business under the trade name “E” (hereinafter “E”) from November 23, 2012 to July 7, 2015.

The F took over the E business from B and operated E from July 7, 2015 to October 22, 2015.

On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a report on the succession to the status of a business operator on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired E business from F from F, and operates E up to now.

B. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of the suspension of business against E (i.e., the period of business suspension: October 6, 2015) for three months (i.e., the period of business suspension: January 3, 2016) (hereinafter “first disposition”).

C. The Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic on May 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant act of arranging sexual traffic”), based on Article 11(1)8 of the former Public Health Control Act (amended by Act No. 15184, Dec. 12, 2017; hereinafter the same) and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act, “the instant disposition below the closure order of the place of business against E” is “the instant disposition” on July 10, 2017.

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that “In the event of a disposition, an administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition to the party concerned.” The Defendant violated Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act by stating only the facts constituting “act of arranging sexual traffic” in the notice of holding a hearing for the instant disposition and the notification of an administrative disposition. 2) On the premise that the effect of the first disposition against B is succeeded to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff’s act of arranging sexual traffic in this case as the second violation, and the instant disposition in this case was erroneous under such premise.