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

A. On September 16, 2010, the Plaintiff is engaged in the consignment and medicinal beverage manufacturing business with the trade name of the Defendant’s license for manufacture of consigned and medicinal liquor from the Cheongdong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Pudo, from 474-3 to x.

B. After January 2012, the Plaintiff manufactured and sold approximately 13,000 OO O OO lag (hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverages”). During the process of the investigation conducted on March 28, 2012 by the Daejeon Regional Food and Drug Administration, the Plaintiff was found to have used additional materials (flags, color lags) that the Plaintiff could not use for the table as above, and the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration notified the Defendant thereof on April 4, 2012.

C. Accordingly, on May 11, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of manufacturing alcoholic beverages 15 days (from May 21, 2012 to June 4, 2012) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff manufactured alcoholic beverages in violation of the specifications of alcoholic beverages (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 2(1) and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act, which provides for materials that can be added to liquor pursuant to the delegation of Article 5(4) of the Liquor Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree provision of this case”), limits the prohibition of arbitrarily treating the consigned manufacturer compared to other liquor manufacturers, etc., and thus, the provision of this case violates the principle of equality as well as infringes on the consigned manufacturer’s freedom of occupation and consumer’s right to self-determination. Thus, the defendant’s disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff violated the Constitution and thus null and void provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Under Article 4 (1) of the Liquor Tax Act, the kinds of alcoholic beverages shall be classified into "alcoholic beverages, fermentation alcoholic beverages, distilled alcoholic beverages, distilled alcoholic beverages, and other alcoholic beverages." The kinds of alcoholic beverages in effect shall be classified into "refined alcoholic beverages, medicinal alcoholic beverages, Cheongju, Cheongju, Cheongju", and distilled alcoholic beverages into "Cheongju (e.g., distilled alcoholic beverages, dilutioning alcoholic beverages), Bakiskki, general distilled alcoholic beverages, and riman," and Article 4 (2) and [Attachment] of the Liquor Tax Act provides for the detailed contents of the separate alcoholic beverages as above. According to this, the kinds of alcoholic beverages in the Liquor Tax Act shall be classified into the same kinds of alcoholic beverages as those in the corresponding alcoholic beverages, in addition to the original forms of the corresponding alcoholic beverages, even if certain materials, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree are added to the corresponding alcoholic beverages, and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case include materials added to the corresponding alcoholic beverages in their original forms.

On the other hand, any liquor using any raw material, manufacturing method, added materials, etc. is not prohibited from being manufactured, unless it is in violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and since Article 4(2) of the Liquor Tax Act and subparagraph 4(e) of the attached Table provide open provision concerning the contents of other alcoholic beverages, it constitutes "other alcoholic beverages" if it is not included in the remaining kinds of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act.

Ultimately, the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Liquor Tax Act and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case provide for the establishment of any kind of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act in order to regulate various kinds of alcoholic beverages by a certain unit. It can be seen as a provision for the establishment of a certain kind of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act and for the establishment of a certain kind of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act.

2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s health care room: (a) added color fluence and fluence to the original colon as stipulated in Article 4(2) and [Attachment Table] subparag. 2(a) of the Liquor Tax Act; and (b) pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s manufacture of the instant alcoholic beverages by adding color fluence and fluence to them; and (c) under Article 4(2) and [Attachment Table] subparag. 2(b) of the Liquor Tax Act, the kinds of added materials that may be incorporated into a table under the Liquor Tax Act are not included in color flusium and flusium under the Liquor Tax Act; and (d) so, the instant alcoholic beverages cannot be incorporated into the “colon under the Liquor Tax Act” and Article 4(2) and [Attachment Table] subparag. 4(b) of the Liquor Tax Act. However, the Plaintiff is merely holding a license for manufacture of medicinal liquor and medicinal liquor; and (e) the Plaintiff’s cannot be used in accordance with Article 1(2) of the instant alcoholic beverage.

3) However, as seen earlier, the provisions of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Liquor Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of this case set forth what kind of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act and what kind of alcoholic beverages should be included under the Liquor Tax Act. According to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case, it is not possible to include it in the name of a consignor under the Liquor Tax Act in the case where a consignor added a fluor or color fluor as the same as the instant alcoholic beverages, and the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case does not itself prevent the addition of a fluor or color fluor to the table. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case are in violation of the Constitution is related to the issue of whether to treat it as a fluoral liquor without treating it as a fluoral liquor under the Liquor Tax Act where a fluoral or color fluor is added to the table.

4) Pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Liquor Tax Act, a person who intends to manufacture sprinkes and alcoholic beverages shall obtain a license from the head of the competent tax office with certain facility standards, etc. for each alcoholic beverage manufacturer by type (Article 6(1) of the Liquor Tax Act), the tax rate for the remaining alcoholic beverages excluding a consignor shall not exceed 30% or 72%, but the tax rate for the consignor shall not exceed 5% (Article 22(2) of the Liquor Tax Act). In the case of a consignor, unlike other alcoholic beverage manufacturers, the consignee is exempted from the obligation to pay education tax (Article 3 subparag. 4 of the Education Tax Act). In addition to the table liquor, it is true that the Plaintiff is not treated as a master under the Liquor Tax Act due to the failure to legally manufacture the alcoholic beverages of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to obtain a separate license for other alcoholic beverages from the Defendant, as well as to pay the liquor tax at a rate of 30% without any consideration, as well as to pay the education tax at considerable disadvantage.

① However, in principle, the issue of how to determine the detailed contents by type of alcoholic beverages or how to include and handle a certain alcoholic beverage in the kinds of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act is a field in which legislators make a wide decision by comprehensively considering various factors such as characteristics of the relevant alcoholic beverage, and (2) there is a need for public interest to maintain and preserve a wide range of legislative discretion or formation in its original form as far as possible as possible as possible, and considering these factors, the Liquor Tax Act, etc. grants special benefits to a consigned manufacturer, such as setting a tax rate on the consignment as above in the Liquor Tax Act, etc. (3) the restriction on materials that can be added by type of alcoholic beverages under the Enforcement Decree of the instant case on materials that may be added by type of alcoholic beverages may be deprived of the characteristics of each type in the event of abuse of added materials. In fact, it is difficult to maintain and preserve the traditional form of consignment when adding to alcoholic beverages or color to alcoholic beverages under the Enforcement Decree of the instant case, and thus, it is not necessary to see that the instant provision may not be added in the form of free liquor or public interest.

5) Therefore, insofar as the enforcement decree provision of this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.