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

A. The Plaintiff was established on January 10, 1998, and purchased from the Defendant with a specialized wholesale business license for imported alcoholic beverages from the Defendant on February 25, 1998 and engaged in wholesale business.

B. On January 12, 2009, the Defendant issued a new import alcoholic beverage wholesale business license to the Plaintiff, and sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed dealer, the said license was revoked.

C. The Defendant: (a) from April 22, 2010 to June 18, 2010, to the Plaintiff during the investigation period; and (b) from June 22, 2010 to the date of investigation.

1. On September 13, 2010, according to the result of the investigation of tracking the distribution process of alcoholic beverages by parallel investigation, such as violation of the Liquor Tax Act, from January 1 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to Gangwon and YB, a non-licensed seller, during the taxable period of value-added tax, between February 2, 2008 and February 2009, in violation of the aforementioned designation conditions. ② Over the taxable period, the Plaintiff revoked the pertinent disposition under Article 9(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act, on the grounds that the total amount of the amount of the amount of the tax directly issued by Gangwon and YB to its customers (hereinafter referred to as "non-data alcoholic beverage sales amount") and the amount of the tax invoice are more than 10/100 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by each taxable period, on the grounds that Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act was revoked.

D. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the license for the wholesale business specializing in imported alcoholic beverages under this Court 2010Guhap3686, and on October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was suspended from the execution of the said revocation disposition until the judgment of the revocation of the revocation of the license was rendered (hereinafter referred to as the “Suspension of Execution”).

E. On October 18, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce the Plaintiff’s shipment of alcoholic beverages by 50% from October 23, 2010 to the date when the judgment on revocation of a license for an imported alcoholic beverage wholesale business, which was issued by the National Tax Service, pursuant to Article 40 of the Liquor Tax Act, Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 209-41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 209-41 of the National Tax Service’s Notice) with respect to the manufacturer and importer of unfaithful alcoholic beverages (hereinafter “instant disposition of ex-factory shipment reduction”).

[Reasons for Recognition: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The decision of the court below on the delivery volume of this case violated the validity of the decision to suspend the execution of this case, and the plaintiff was not notified of the hearing procedures, etc., and the above disposition of the delivery volume was unlawful, even though the plaintiff was excessively harsh and abused discretion, the defendant's disposition of the delivery volume of this case was otherwise reported.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed without going through the procedure of the previous trial.

B. Determination

According to Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a person whose rights or interests have been infringed upon by this Act or other tax-related Acts by being subject to an illegal or unreasonable disposition or by failing to receive a necessary disposition may request the cancellation or modification of such disposition or by filing a request for necessary disposition. As long as a person is subject to a disposition under this Act or tax-related Acts, it is unclear whether such disposition includes a passive disposition, such as refusal or omission, and whether such disposition is a tax disposition or not. In order to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unlike the principle of discretionary transfer of administrative appeals applied to general administrative litigation, the procedures for a request for examination or adjudgment (including each case where a formal objection is filed) under Articles 55(1) and 56(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes must be completed within 90 days after he/she became aware of such disposition (including the date on which he/she receives a notice of disposition

According to the above evidence, even if the Plaintiff knew of the disposition of delivery volume under the liquor tax law around November 15, 2010, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not request an examination or a request for trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes until 90 days have passed from the date of the disposition, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it is not subject to the prior trial procedure prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Defendant’s defense prior to the lawsuit of this case is justified (the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 7, 2010 by filing a civil petition that the disposition of delivery volume should be illegally withdrawn through the citizen examination, which is an online civil petition counter operated by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and even if the above civil petition was transferred to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not receive a response by filing a civil petition, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff underwent a lawful request for examination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5332, Sept. 29, 1995).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.