2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant's disposition of suspension of manufacture against the plaintiff on March 18, 2016 shall be revoked for one month.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Under a contract with △△ Distribution, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to △△△△ Distribution, and △△△ Distribution sold them to consumers. The Plaintiff is merely transporting and delivering alcoholic beverages directly to consumers according to convenience, not selling alcoholic beverages to consumers. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued by △△ Distribution is a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice even if it supplied goods to consumers.

The grounds for suspending a license under Article 15(1)4 of the Liquor Tax Act are premised on the fact that a licensee of alcoholic beverages violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The Plaintiff only supplied alcoholic beverages under a contract with △△ distribution and issued a tax invoice, and did not have any intention to avoid awareness or tax that the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice. Therefore, there was no intention to violate the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Article 3(1) of the “Public Notice on Assignment of Alcoholic Beverages” provides that a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages shall deliver alcoholic beverages only to a person who has received a certificate of alcoholic beverage sales license. As seen above, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have delivered alcoholic beverages to consumers. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the public notice of this case even if the Plaintiff violated the said public notice, the disposition of suspension of license shall not be taken on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the said public notice.

x) Since the plaintiff's interest infringed by the disposition of this case is too large, the disposition of this case is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff directly sells alcoholic beverages to consumers, other than △△ distribution, and issues a false tax invoice as if he released alcoholic beverages to △△ distribution, and whether the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice to consumers.

㈎ 앞서 든 증거에 을 제1, 12 내지 19호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면 다음 사실들이 인정된다.

① Article 4 of the Notice on Trade in Alcoholic Beverages drawn up between the Plaintiff and △△ Distribution provides that “A” (the Plaintiff refers to the distribution of △△△; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall supply Party B’s products at the producer-factory price. Article 5(1)4 provides that “B shall freely determine the sales price of Party B’s products to the extent that it does not go against normal commercial practices,” while Article 5(1)4 provides that “A may request Party B to cooperate in advertising and sales promotion activities to improve the image of the products.”

② At each time the instant specialty event is held, the Plaintiff sent a letter of cooperation to △△ distribution to request cooperation in the issuance of receipts, such as sales price reduction or tax invoices. On the other hand, the Plaintiff informed of affiliate companies or affiliate companies of the fact of holding a pre-sale event and submitted a written order from them, and △△△△ distribution requested specific liquor sales procedures, such as the issuance of receipts based on the details of the order. The distribution of △△△△ was omitted from the Plaintiff’s usual liquor storage or inspection procedure, which is processed by the Plaintiff’s direct execution of the delivery of alcoholic beverages to buyers of the pre-sale event, and issued a tax invoice by designating individual buyers as the recipient of the pre-sale in accordance with the details of the order

③ The Plaintiff’s employee in charge of alcoholic beverage sales received credit cards from the suppliers of alcoholic beverages, such as affiliates and subcontractors, to make payments on behalf of others or to receive cash payments from △△△ distribution, and delivered them to △△△△△. The Plaintiff stated that the liquor supply and receipt issuing office was the distribution of △△△△△ even in the order form used by the Plaintiff as a notice of the special event of alcoholic beverage sales to

④ In the second half of 2014, △△△△ was supplied with alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 78,284,00 in total from the Plaintiff’s book-keeping factory and sold them to consumers in total at KRW 83,176,00, thereby gaining profits of KRW 4,892,000.

㈏ 부가가치세법 제9조 제1항은 부가가치세 과세대상인 거래로서의'재화의 공급'에 관하여"계약상 또는 법률상의 모든 원인에 따라 재화를 인도하거나 양도하는 것으로 한다."라고 규정하고 있다.

On the other hand, since a contract does not necessarily have to take the form of a document, a contract is concluded only with implied or oral intent on essential matters or important matters, since it is not necessarily necessary to take the form of a document. However, under the premise that △△△ distribution is supplied alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff (as to the supply price, the producer’s ex-factory price is already stated in the transaction agreement), the Plaintiff’s express exercise intent applies discount price requested by the Plaintiff in selling them to consumers, and the Plaintiff’s specific procedures necessary for alcoholic beverage sales, such as the issuance of a tax invoice, are carried out in accordance with the order provided by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is sufficient to view that there was an implied or oral alcoholic beverage supply agreement between the

In addition, as part of advertising and sales promotion activities for the Plaintiff’s products, the Plaintiff may not engage in sales promotion activities such as sales promotion activities without going through a sales business operator such as △△△△, and the market share can be used in favor of competition. On the other hand, △△△ distribution may gain profits by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s active advertising and sales promotion activities, and thus, the interest between the Plaintiff and △△△ distribution is consistent (the Plaintiff’s duty to cooperate in distribution of △△△ activities is stipulated in Article 5(1)4 of the transaction agreement). Moreover, the Plaintiff is unable to directly sell alcoholic beverages to consumers due to the regulation of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Liquor Tax Act, and the Plaintiff is not allowed to engage in sales promotion activities such as sales promotion activities without going through a sales business operator of alcoholic beverages such as △△△△△△. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s unique circumstances, which are the Plaintiff’s affiliates or collaborative business entities, notified △△△△△△△△ distribution to the Plaintiff and provided it with the disguised distribution process for the Plaintiff’s distribution.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Plaintiff is engaged in a factual act such as the receipt of orders and the delivery of alcoholic beverages in lieu of the special relationship with the alcoholic beverage purchasers or the distribution of △△△ on the transportation convenience, and it is reasonable to deem that the supply of alcoholic beverages was made through the order of distribution between the Plaintiff and the △△△△. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to △△△

D. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is based on the same conclusion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.