1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C operated a lodging facility (the trade name of February 17, 2015 was changed to F) with the trade name “E” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and both of the instant cartels were referred to as “F”; on February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the succession to the status of a business operator upon transfer of business from C on February 17, 2015.

B. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for two months pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Health Control Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant cartel was provided with a place for sexual traffic on September 25, 2014.”

C. On the other hand, on May 2016, the Plaintiff, after filing the instant lawsuit, transferred the instant franchise business to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and on May 24, 2016, the Intervenor reported the succession of business status to the Defendant on May 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff ex officio on the legitimacy of the lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff.

Article 3-2 (1) of the Public Health Control Act provides that when a public health business operator has transferred his public health business, the transferee shall succeed to the status of the public health business operator, and Article 3-2 (4) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 3-4 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the transferee who has succeeded to the status of the public health business

On May 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, but around May 2016, transferred the instant franchise business to the Intervenor, and the Intervenor filed a report on the succession of the status of business operator to the Defendant on May 24, 2016 is recognized as seen earlier.

However, the instant disposition is not a sanction against the Plaintiff’s individual qualification, but a sanction against the instant her violation of the law by the her mother. The instant disposition is against the public health business entity of the instant her mother.