과징금부과처분취소
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 running the manufacturing, wholesale and retail business, meat packaging business, etc. in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. From December 2015 to June 2016, the Plaintiff purchased and supplied pigs from C who had sold livestock products in the said livestock market.
C. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 37.2 million in lieu of the business suspension for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff, a seller of livestock products not reported, sold approximately 25 tons of swine sand purchased from the Plaintiff, and violated Article 33(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) assertion that there is a justifiable reason that cannot be caused by the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty, and the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was a seller of unreported livestock products, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful. Therefore, unlike the purport of the Act on the Abuse of and Abuse of Discretionary Authority, the Enforcement Rule uniformly sets the period of suspension of business depending on the number of violations. The Plaintiff’s annual sales of pigs amounting to about 10 billion won. The Plaintiff’s annual sales of swine sand purchased and sold by the Plaintiff from C were approximately KRW 26 million, and the Plaintiff’s profits derived from the Plaintiff’s violation of the Act on the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products are insignificant and abused.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. The sanctions against the violation of the administrative laws and regulations regarding whether there is a justifiable cause not attributable to the neglect of duty to make a judgment is a sanction against the objective fact of the violation of the administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve the administrative purpose. Therefore, the violator is a punishment.