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 operating a singing practice room (hereinafter “instant singing practice room”) with the trade name of “C King practice room” from the first floor of the Dong-dong, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

B. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was ordered to suspend business for 40 days from January 29, 2014 to March 9, 2014, since the Plaintiff was found to sell alcoholic beverages to customers and arrange for a entertainment loan in the instant singing practice room.

C. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the registration of a singing practice room on March 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff entered the instant singing practice room and allowed a customer to engage in business and bring in alcoholic beverages.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On February 28, 2014, the period of business suspension, the Plaintiff did not run a business in the instant singing practice room. The Plaintiff merely allowed customers who run the instant singing practice room in the instant singing practice room immediately adjacent to the instant singing practice room, which was operated in the instant singing practice room, to sleep in the instant singing practice room. In addition, the instant disposition of abuse of discretionary power was excessively excessive compared to the Plaintiff’s violation and abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination 1) As long as a criminal judgment in an administrative litigation becomes final and conclusive in regard to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, the fact that the above criminal judgment is difficult to adopt a factual judgment, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199). The evidence No. 10 is the evidence of this case.