과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2 to the judgment of the Plaintiff’s assertion added or re-exploited in the trial, and therefore, 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. The addition;
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) The instant disposition is based on the invalid Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which violates the excessive prohibition principle or proportionality principle, and thus is thus null and void or revoked. (2) Even though the Enforcement Rule of the Preliminary Food Sanitation Act is not null and void, the Plaintiff’s omission of indication of protopy in the import declaration is not based on negligence and is not a false document submission without awareness that it is not true to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition should be null and void or revoked.
In addition, the instant disposition did not exceed the private interest protected by the public interest as a compulsory report, but can achieve the purpose of compulsory report by means of disposal and return only. Therefore, it violated the excessive prohibition principle or the proportional principle.
B. Whether the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, which served as the basis of the instant disposition, is null and void, is aimed at contributing to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food, promoting the qualitative improvement of food nutrition, and providing correct information on food. In particular, in the case of imported food containing harmful substances or substances that cannot be used for food, the mere introduction into the Republic of Korea is required to cause danger to national health, and the risk is highly necessary to be immediately removed. Accordingly, the need for regulating the sanitary harm caused by imported food is high, and Article 75(1)4 and (4), and Article 19(1) of the Food Sanitation Act is a food importer.