1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 5, 2015, B filed a public bath report with the Defendant on “D History” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and thereafter, B operated the aforementioned “D History” (hereinafter “D History”) from around that time.

B. On June 8, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Commissioner of the Local Police Agency notified the Defendant of the violation that “the instant violation was committed by guiding the customers, who were found to engage in sexual traffic on March 21, 2016, B and E, who are the business owners of the instant friendship, to the marina business places in the same building and arrange sexual traffic (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. Accordingly, on June 28, 2016, the Defendant sent a prior notice of disposition to B for the holding of a hearing, and on July 14, 2016, the hearing procedure was conducted. At the time, B submitted a written opinion to the effect that the determination of an administrative disposition after confirming the investigation results of the violation by proxy F. D.

After that, on August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the business of the instant friendship from B, and submitted to the Defendant a report on succession to the status of the business entity along with the confirmation, etc. of the administrative disposition procedure regarding the instant violation, and operated the said friendship by changing the trade name from around that time to “G”.

E. Meanwhile, on September 29, 2016, B was subject to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office’s disposition of non-prosecution on the ground of lack of evidence regarding the instant violation on the grounds of lack of evidence. On November 18, 2016, E was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) (Seoul Central District Court 2016 High Court 6808), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

F. Accordingly, on December 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the suspension of business (from January 5, 2017 to April 4, 2017) pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act against the Plaintiff on the ground of arranging sexual traffic (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

recognized.