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

Cheong-gu Office

The suspension of alcoholic beverage sales made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2017 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that had obtained a license for comprehensive liquor wholesale business on April 8, 1982 and engaged in alcoholic beverage sales business.

B. B. From October 12, 2016 to November 15, 2016, 2016, the regional tax office conducted an investigation of tracking the process of alcoholic beverage distribution with the Plaintiff, and reported that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to issue a tax invoice of KRW 101,380,00 in total amount of KRW 50,689,753, which is a part of alcoholic beverages supplied to cccC clubs (hereinafter “cccccccccccccc”) from July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, without issuing a sales tax invoice for KRW 50,689,753, which is a part of alcoholic beverages supplied to ccccccccccccccccccccccc, and instead, ddddd dd d e 32,584,300, eee 6,909, 1196,363.

C. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s total sales of alcoholic beverages constituted 1.1683% of the amount of violation of the duty to issue a tax invoice, and issued a disposition to suspend the Plaintiff’s total sales of alcoholic beverages for 31 days (from March 22, 2017 to April 21, 2017) (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension”).

D. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition of suspension.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case was lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages in accordance with the tax invoice issued by CC, Ddd,ff, ee, and the actual alcoholic beverages supplied to cC are less than the original order, so the sales day was revised in accordance with the actual transaction.

2) Violation of the principle of statutory reservation

The disposition of this case is based on Article 91 of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax Affairs, and the regulations on the management of liquor tax affairs are prescribed to prevent sales business from being carried out for less than one month without any legal basis, thereby unfairly restricting the plaintiff's discretion and violating the principle of statutory reservation.

3) A deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

In addition, according to the above provision, the disposition of this case is too harsh in view of the fact that the plaintiff representative directorj was fully aware of the violation of the duty to issue tax invoices, and that the plaintiff did not have any profit from the plaintiff's violation of the duty to issue tax invoices, etc., the disposition of this case is too harsh.

(b) Relevant u300 statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Plaintiff’s sales method

If the plaintiff's business employee notifies the order quantity in the accounting and accounting before the delivery date of alcoholic beverages, the accounting and accounting division shall issue an invoice for alcoholic beverage sales in accordance with the order quantity, and the warehouse director shall designate the delivery officer for each customer and carry the bill for alcoholic beverage sales and supply alcoholic beverages to the individual customer.

2) Method of issuing the Plaintiff’s tax invoice

The Plaintiff’s business employees manage the sales office individually. Of the Plaintiff’s employees, the employees who supply alcoholic beverages to cC are gg, and the employees who supply alcoholic beverages to dddd, eee, or fff are hh. On the day when the Plaintiff’s individual business employees supplied alcoholic beverages, if the sales on the day, day, and day, and the day of payment are adjusted, the accounting officer shall collect the electronic tax invoice and issue the monthly electronic tax invoice.

3) Statement of the representative director of the plaintiff

The plaintiff representative jj was actually sold and deposited alcoholic beverages to ccc during the process of hot beverage distribution tracking investigation, but the electronic tax invoice was issued by dividing them into ddd, eee, and fff and issued an electronic tax invoice different from the fact, and signed a letter of answer stating the same content.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i) the existence of the reasons for the measure

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 10 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff did not issue a sales tax invoice for KRW 50,689,753, which is a part of the alcoholic beverages supplied to ccC from July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and instead, instead of issuing a sales tax invoice for KRW 32,584,30, 584,300, eee-ro 6,909, 090, 11,196,363, fff 11,363, which is a total amount of KRW 101,380,00,000 by issuing a sales tax invoice without a real liquor supply, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10 and witness title No. 31, 2015 is without merit.

A) According to the National Tax Service Notice No. 2015-29 of the National Tax Service’s notification, “the method of transfer and acquisition of alcoholic beverages, the other party, and other notification of delegation of orders concerning alcoholic beverages”, when a vendor transports alcoholic beverages, he/she is required to carry a tax invoice or sales invoice consistent with alcoholic beverages. Thus, if the alcoholic beverages supplied are less than the original order quantity, it appears that the remaining alcoholic beverages are treated as returned.

B) As alleged by the Plaintiff, if alcoholic beverages that had to be supplied to ccc as a result of a change in the plan of supply on the same day were supplied to ddd and other sales offices. Accordingly, if a sales partner who is not a business employee in charge supplies alcoholic beverages, it is reasonable to view that the relevant sales partner reflected a low change in the details at the time of the preparation of the daily sales slip on the same day. However, the part of the Plaintiff’s sales slip appears to have been later modified in the letters of other persons who are not the business employee in charge.

C) In addition, if alcoholic beverages are supplied to other sales offices due to the amendment to the above supply plan, the Plaintiff should have paid the liquor price to other sales offices. However, other sales offices, such as Dddd, paid the Plaintiff the liquor price that falls short of the amount stated in the tax invoice, and cC paid the Plaintiff the amount in excess of the amount stated in the tax invoice to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserted that six persons, such as ccc, ddd, ed, eee, and f, are engaged in the same business, and even if the company actually supplied alcoholic beverages is not the company that actually supplied, there is no evidence to deem that there was settlement among alcoholic beverage companies.

2) Whether the principle of statutory reservation has been violated

A) Article 15(1)4 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "where a licensee of alcoholic beverage sales business violates his/her duty to issue tax invoices under Article 10(1), (2) or (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by taxation period under Article 5(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the head of the competent tax office shall issue a disposition to suspend sales for a fixed period of not more than three months where the total sales of alcoholic beverages are not less than 10/1,000 but less than 10/1,000 of the total sales of alcoholic beverages (where the total purchases of alcoholic beverages are larger than the total sales of alcoholic beverages, referring to the total purchases of alcoholic beverages), and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "the head of the competent tax office shall issue a disposition to suspend sales of alcoholic beverages for a fixed period of not more than three months."

B) According to the above relevant provisions, the grounds for the disposition of business suspension and the period of business suspension are stipulated in the Presidential Decree delegated by the Liquor Tax Act and the Liquor Tax Act, and the defendant, as seen above, has discretion to determine the period of business suspension for the plaintiff who violated the duty to issue the tax invoice within the scope of not more than three months. As such, Article 91 of the Liquor Tax Management Regulation provides that the defendant's exercise of discretionary power over the period of the disposition of business suspension shall be deemed to have standardized the specific criteria. Thus, as long as the Act already grants the authority to decide matters concerning the disposition of business suspension to the competent administrative agency and provides the legal basis for the disposition of the disposition, it does not necessarily require delegation of the law

C) Therefore, even if the Defendant determined the level of disposition against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 91(1) of the Liquor Tax Management Regulation, it cannot be said that it violates the principle of statutory reservation. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3) Whether or not the discretionary power has been exceeded and abused

A) In the case of judicial review of discretionary acts, the court shall examine only whether the pertinent act is deviates or abused from the discretion without drawing a reader’s conclusion, taking into account the room for determining the public interest based on the discretion of the administrative agency. The examination of such deviation or abuse of discretion is subject to the determination of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality and equality, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du17593, Feb. 9, 2001; 2010Du21204, Dec. 23, 2010).

B) In order to establish the standards for exercising discretionary power, the Defendant may prepare and take a disposition in accordance with the administrative agency’s internal administrative rules, i.e., the discretionary rules, and the disposition of suspension by the Defendant as the exercise of discretionary power, unless it is acknowledged that the disposition of suspension is considerably inappropriate in light of social norms, and it is not illegal since it is within the scope of the discretionary power, unless it is acknowledged that it deviates from or abused

C) When applying the criteria of Article 91(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax, it is recognized that the regulation itself is reasonable because it determines each period of suspension of alcoholic beverage sales business in proportion to the degree of offense. The above criteria eliminate the room for arbitrary disposition, set the administrative agency itself as an intention to be bound from the fair and reasonable exercise of authority in accordance with the principle of equality and proportionality, and comply with the above criteria for disposition. Considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was excessively harsh or that the instant disposition was abused or abused in violation of the principle of equality and proportionality. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.