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 pharmacist who establishes and operates a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) under the trade name “C pharmacy” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.
Plaintiff
D, a spouse, has served as an employee in the instant pharmacy.
B. D on March 4, 2014, around 11:23, 2014, sold 2,000 won an over-the-counter drug (hereinafter “the instant drug”) to customers who could not know the name of the instant pharmacy.
Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act prohibiting the sale of medicines without qualification under applicable statutes; Article 76(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 283, Jan. 5, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”) / [Attachment 3] Article 81 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 33 and 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25605, Sep. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”).
C. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,850,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in lieu of five days of business suspension pursuant to the following applicable statutes to the Plaintiff, a pharmacy founder, on July 22, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The instant disposition on the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked as follows.
1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of the screen pictures taken by Pampas without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the said screen pictures were unlawful by infringing upon the portrait right and the freedom of privacy, and did not intentionally photograph D only employees, and did not have a preparation room behind D. 2) The Plaintiff did not have any side effect on employees in advance.