beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.01 2014구합22046

과징금부과처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s imposition of the penalty surcharge of KRW 11,620,00,00 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated the Home Pusscisus tamper (hereinafter “instant store”) that is a major retailer located in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant store”). From January 9, 2012 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied MAP (hereinafter “instant product”); (b) supplied MAP products (hereinafter “instant product”) to the Defendant, which was packed from the company “P” (hereinafter “instant company”); and (c) displayed and sold the instant product for three days.

B. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,1620,000 as substitute for the suspension of business pursuant to Articles 7, 75, and 82 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11985, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former Food Sanitation Act”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “FF fishery products operating in the state of refrigerating for more than 24 hours were displayed for sale for three days and violated the standards for preservation and distribution” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 5 (including each number in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant product is packaging fishery products carried out using the advanced packing method (MAP method). Since there was no provision on the packing method as to such method, such sales act does not constitute a violation of the former Food Sanitation Act. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s act violates the former Food Sanitation Act, the Plaintiff knew that the instant product was a processed food or refrigerating that is not a freezing food under the former Food Sanitation Act, and thus, there was no intention or liability for such violation.

3. Furthermore, it is discretionary to impose a penalty surcharge in lieu of 7 days of business suspension, which is the maximum limit of the disposition standards, even though the sales volume is insignificant and there is no risk to people at all.