logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.27 2017구단25512
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff is a person who operates an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking house”) with the trade name “C” on the first floor below the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office’s B hotel building (hereinafter “C”).

B. around 04:00 on March 20, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s employees D had 1.3 million won (2.70,000 won for the money paid to women subject to E’s commercial sex acts, including drinking value, etc.) from the instant entertainment drinking house customers E, etc. and had F of the said entertainment drinking house engage in sexual intercourse in B hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) G, thereby allowing F of the said entertainment drinking house to conduct sexual intercourse (hereinafter “act of arranging commercial sex acts as of March 20, 2016”). In addition, the Plaintiff controlled the act of arranging commercial sex acts on the grounds that: (a) around 22:55 of the instant entertainment drinking house around 27, 2016; and (b) each of the said entertainment drinking house employees K, M, and 200,000 won; and (c) each of the said acts of arranging commercial sex acts on the grounds that he/she controlled each of the instant entertainment drinking, etc., 2010.

On August 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for 135 days on the grounds of the act of arranging sexual traffic as of March 20, 2016 and the act of arranging sexual traffic as of October 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including each number), witness Q and R's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) On March 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E and F did not constitute sexual traffic itself.

There is no fact that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's employee mediates the above sexual traffic.

B. Even if the above arrangement of commercial sex acts was committed, it is irrelevant to the plaintiff.

E. F. A place where the F is drinking on the same day.

arrow