Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act (License for Constructive Alcoholic Beverages Sales Business)

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 14, 2014, the Defendant revoked the revocation of a constructive alcoholic beverage sales license granted to the Plaintiff.

A. In order to operate AAA (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") in the O O O-based O-based O to operate the K-based Korean-style restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "the place of business of this case"), the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on July 2, 2014 pursuant to Article 8 (4) 1 of the Liquor Tax Act and Article 10 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant was deemed to have obtained a liquor sales license by issuing the business registration certificate stating the liquor license number to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "license for a liquor sales business license deemed as business registration of this case").

B. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the instant constructive license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not obtain a business license under Article 8(4)1 of the Liquor Tax Act with respect to the instant workplace.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 29, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not obtain a business license under Article 8 (4) 1 of the Liquor Tax Act on the instant building, the Plaintiff did not obtain a business license for the instant building site under Article 8 (4) 1 of the Liquor Tax Act, the Defendant had prevented the issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses to another place of business within the instant building for more than ten years, and the present place of business is conducting funeral services after obtaining a liquor license. Thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to grant a liquor license is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 8(4)1 of the Liquor Tax Act requires that a person who runs a liquor sales business at a place which has obtained a license under the Food Sanitation Act as a requirement for a legal fiction of license for alcoholic beverage sales business. The Plaintiff did not obtain a license under the Food Sanitation Act for the instant place of business, and thus does not meet the legal fiction of license for alcoholic beverage sales business. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the current place of business within the instant building is operating a liquor sales business by obtaining a license even without obtaining a license under the Food Sanitation Act, and even if a place of business which fails to meet the legal fiction of license for alcoholic beverage sales business in the previous building as alleged by the Plaintiff was operated by obtaining a license for alcoholic beverage sales business in violation of the law, the Plaintiff’s assertion of unlawful equality is not permissible. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.