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 the representative of an international marriage broker in Junggu-gu, Daegu-gu, as the “C” (hereinafter “instant broker”).

B. D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, was issued a summary order on September 14, 2015 and introduced Vietnam female F after entering into an international marriage brokerage contract with E on September 14, 2015, and applied for formal trial on the ground that “F provided personal information on the marriage records, health conditions, criminal records, etc. to E without obtaining a consular confirmation” and then appealed ( Daegu District Court Decision 2016DaMa2645), but the judgment dismissing the appeal on January 12, 2018 ( Daegu District Court Decision 2017No4128), which became final and conclusive by dismissing D’s final appeal on April 10, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2204).

C. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant: (a) mitigated the disposition of suspending the marriage brokerage business for three months in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Marriage Business Act and Article 12 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the grounds that the Defendant did not provide personal information at the instant business establishment in violation of Article 10-2(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”); and (b) mitigated the disposition of suspending the business for three months in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act; and (c) issued a disposition

On August 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the original disposition, and the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered an adjudication that changed the original disposition by 15 days of business suspension.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” for the suspension of business on July 10, 2018, which was reduced by the said administrative appeal ruling, as of July 10, 2018.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff, the representative of the brokerage office of this case, was subject to a disposition of no suspicion of violation of the Marriage Brokerage Business Act, and therefore, the grounds for the disposition cannot be acknowledged.