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 running an entertainment tavern (hereinafter in this case) under the trade name “A” in a building located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and its representative director C.

B. On June 17, 2014, the police officer entered the instant entertainment drinking club as if he were a guest, paid a consideration to have a sexual intercourse with a female employee, and then entered the instant entertainment drinking club as if he were a guest (hereinafter “first crackdown”), and the other police officers entered the instant entertainment drinking club as if he were a guest, and paid a consideration to have a sexual intercourse with a female employee, and then the instant entertainment drinking club was committed by arranging sexual traffic.

(hereinafter referred to as "second control").

On March 5, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 83,080,000 in lieu of the business suspension on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, a food service business operator, engaged in sexual traffic mediation twice (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The first control of the illegal naval investigation Do was refused at first against the police officer's demand for sexual traffic which pretended to customers, but the police officer argued that it was a contact for important transactions and responded to the demand of the police officer. The second control was conducted by the police officer who succeeded in the first control and notified another police officer of the information. Therefore, the first control was illegal as a naval investigation that causes a criminal intent to a person who does not have criminal intent, and the second control was also illegal as it was based on the first control, and thus, the second control was also illegal as it was based on the illegal naval investigation, and thus, it was unlawful. 2) The plaintiff's net profit abused discretion.