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 person running a public health business (or accommodation business) while operating a lodging establishment in Daegu-gu B (hereinafter “instant inn”).

B. On August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of business suspension 45 days (from March 30, 2017 to May 13, 2017) from the Defendant on March 16, 2017 on the ground that D provided a place for sexual traffic in arranging sexual traffic in the instant in the instant inn.

C. On May 29, 2017, the Defendant was notified by the Daegu East Police Station of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. with the purport that “E, the wife of the Plaintiff, assisted the sexual traffic around 01:30 on April 22, 2017 while operating the instant inception.”

On July 14, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to close a place of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 11 of the former Public Health Control Act (amended by Act No. 15184, Dec. 12, 2017) and Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, No. 508, Jul. 28, 2017) on the grounds that the Defendant committed an act of arranging sexual traffic against the Plaintiff during the period of business suspension.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The crackdowns on the instant violation of the Act on the Investigation of Wars were conducted when the police officer, who sought a shelter by pretending customers, and demanded that the instant female sexual traffic will take place. Thus, the instant violation constitutes a naval investigation. Thus, it is unlawful to take the instant disposition as the ground for disposition. 2) The first violation of the Act on the Investigation of Wars is a violation that D alone committed, and the Plaintiff’s wife is a police officer who pretended to customers, seeking a defense against the new wall time.