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 a company that imports and sells fishery products.
B. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff imported freezing from China’s “FUINGCOY BYOYOUT APS PE.” (hereinafter “production factory of this case”) and filed an import declaration with the Busan Local Food and Drug Safety Agency on May 30, 2016 under Article 20(1) of the Special Act on Imported Food and Drug Safety (hereinafter “Import Food and Drug Act”), and the import declaration was accompanied by a forged sanitary certificate (hereinafter “instant sanitary certificate”).
C. On August 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge of KRW 26,400,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in lieu of 15 days of business suspension on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an import declaration for the freezing of China, accompanied by a forged sanitary certificate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Article 20(2)1 of the Plaintiff’s alleged Imported Food Act “an act of filing an import declaration by fraud or other improper means” refers to an act of filing an import declaration by using deceptive means, deceptive means, deceptive means, or other unlawful means, with the knowledge that an importer cannot file an import declaration in accordance with normal procedures.
However, the Plaintiff did not forge the instant sanitary certificate or conspired to do so, and did not know at all about the forged fact.
Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it does not exist.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. As a matter of principle, sanctions against the violation of administrative laws and regulations are sanctions against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, there is a justifiable reason that does not cause any negligence on the duty of the violator.