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 cel on the 3 to 6th floor of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City building B.

B. On May 25, 2017, the Commissioner of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Police Agency notified the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., stating that “A” on the first floor of the “D” entertainment entertainment bars located under the building that the Plaintiff operated from the insular date to April 25, 2017, with knowledge of the fact that male grandchildren and female employees want to engage in commercial sex acts, he/she, even though he/she wishes to engage in commercial sex acts, provided that he/she would arrange commercial sex acts, such as arranging commercial sex acts, by receiving a substitute fee of KRW 20,00,000 from the said

C. On December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million at the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “instant summary order”) with approximately 2017 high-level 14200,000, on the grounds of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. for the said violation.

On March 29, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 11(1) and (2) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act, on the ground that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff, an operator of the instant cartel, a place for sexual traffic, to arrange sexual traffic, etc. (hereinafter “instant violation”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on April 11, 2018, but Gwangju Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on June 28, 2018.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 2, 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 acknowledged the fact that he had inflicted drinking on the male grandchildren in the entertainment tavern, but did not arrange sexual traffic to customers, and did not act as a substitute.