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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s revocation disposition of the revocation of the comprehensive alcoholic beverage sales business that the Plaintiff rendered on January 13, 2014 shall be revoked.

A. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained a license for a comprehensive liquor wholesale business (including imported alcoholic beverages) at the location of sales outlet from the Defendant, 'OO also 'OB BB BBO OB 61-8 (hereinafter 'B head office'), the type of alcoholic beverages to be sold, 'general consignment, and pre-importing alcoholic beverages (including imported alcoholic beverages)'.

B. From August 29, 2012 to October 17, 2012, the director of the AAA Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that “the Plaintiff established a place of business in OO-dong 923-1 (hereinafter “O-2”) and stored and sold alcoholic beverages without obtaining a license for alcoholic beverage sales business from October 1, 2008; (b) issued a tax invoice to the customer during the quarterly taxable period from February 2, 2009 to December 2, 2012, and notified the Defendant.”

C. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff and KimCC, who actually operated the Plaintiff, demanding that the Plaintiff pay OOO members equivalent to a fine on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s non-licensed alcoholic beverage sales and the issuance of false tax invoices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued the said notice on April 26, 2013, and KimCC on November 6, 2013.

D. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive liquor wholesale business license pursuant to Article 15(2)1 of the Liquor Tax Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not meet the licensing requirements under Article 8(1) of the Liquor Tax Act and Article 9(1) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act due to the act of selling liquor without a license. Thereafter, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive liquor wholesale business license pursuant to Article 15(2)1 of the Liquor Tax Act on January 13, 2014. Since the front notice is unclear, the date of revocation of the license is designated as January 17, 2014 as the date of revocation of the license.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 9, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) While the disposition of revocation must indicate the relevant laws and regulations and the violation thereof, the Defendant, while making the instant disposition, omitted it, there is procedural defect in the instant disposition.

2) Article 8(1) of the Liquor Tax Act and Article 9(1) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act require that "five years have passed since comprehensive liquor wholesale business was punished under Article 6 and Article 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as a license requirement for liquor wholesale business." However, since the plaintiff only stops at the place where a liquor warehouse in the OO is loaded or alcoholic beverages are used as a rest place from a customer, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff kept and sold alcoholic beverages without obtaining a license under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. ② The plaintiff does not have any fact of being punished under Article 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishing a person who reuses or alters the tax payment certification tokens. ③ Since the tax law strictly construed the above provision, since the "five years have passed since the above provision was punished under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act," the requirement that a license for liquor sales business should be acquired, it does not constitute a case where the defendant received a punishment for extension of the license."

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion that the grounds for the disposition and the violation were not indicated

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition to the parties in the event of a disposition. According to each of the evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the defendant can be recognized as having specified the grounds and grounds for the disposition in this case, and the facts that the defendant has specified the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

2) Determination as to the assertion that there is no ground for disposition

A) Article 15(2)1 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "if a person fails to meet the license requirements under Article 8(1) of the Liquor Tax Act, a license shall be revoked." Article 8(1) of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "a person who intends to operate a liquor sales business shall obtain a license from the head of the competent tax office by selling stores by type of alcoholic beverage sales business after meeting the facility standards and other requirements." Article 9(1) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "1. b. 3] of the comprehensive liquor wholesale business under Article 9(1) [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "five years shall have passed where a person is punished under Articles 6 and 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, among the license requirements for the comprehensive liquor wholesale business. Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who sells alcoholic beverages

B) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages at the OO seat without obtaining a license for alcoholic beverage sales business.

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8, the plaintiff leased 30 square meters of storage and 12 square meters of office (10 square meters of site size) at the location of O, other than BB's headquarters which obtained a comprehensive liquor wholesale business license, the plaintiff leased 30 square meters of storage and 12 square meters of office (10 square meters of site size) from October 1, 2008. The above 10 directors, 2 accounting employees, and 3 sales employees who reside at the 200 registry. The KimCC sold alcoholic beverages to the 110 business partners at the 200 O registry location in the same manner as BB headquarters, the plaintiff operated the 300 business office located at the 300 business office in the same manner as BB headquarters, and the plaintiff did not establish the 1000 business office or 4 business office testimony at the 15000 business office or 4 business office, or did not establish the 3 business office testimony at the 2013 business office address of the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though a person who intends to operate alcoholic beverage sales business should obtain a license separately for each sales outlet, the Plaintiff violated Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by selling alcoholic beverages without obtaining a license at the O's location other than BB head office from October 1, 2008. In response, the Plaintiff’s above assertion (i) is without merit.

C) On the grounds delineated earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that Article 15(2)1 of the Liquor Tax Act, Article 8(1) of the Liquor Tax Act, and Article 9(1) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act cannot be applied to the Plaintiff.

First of all, the issue of whether the Plaintiff is punished under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is the person who is punished under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The term "in the case of punishment under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act" should be deemed to be when a criminal trial on the relevant case becomes final and conclusive, in case where the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant for violating Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the Plaintiff was punished under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Next, we examine whether the requirements for a license for a liquor sales business are the requirements to continue to exist. Article 15 (2) 1 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "Where a licensee becomes unable to meet the requirements for a license under Article 8 (1) of the Liquor Tax Act on the grounds of revocation of license," the requirements for a license for a liquor sales business are required not only to obtain a license but also to maintain and maintain a license. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the requirements for a license for a liquor sales business are also necessary to keep and maintain a license as well as to prevent a person who engages in a non-license sales business under Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act from being excluded from the requirements for a license applicant. As such, the necessity for such prevention is not only when a licensee acquires a license but also after the acquisition of a license.

Finally, it is considered whether the license for alcoholic beverage sales business can be revoked only when the person is punished in violation of both Articles 6 and 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.In the case of comprehensive alcoholic beverage sales business under Article 6 and Article 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as the requirements for the license for comprehensive alcoholic beverage sales business, five years shall have passed since the person was punished in accordance with Article 6 and Article 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the interpretation of the above provision should be interpreted to the effect that the license can not be revoked unless the person was punished in Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or when the person was punished in Article 12 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion (B, 3, 4) against this is without merit.

D) Ultimately, insofar as the Plaintiff was punished for violation of Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act after obtaining a license for a comprehensive liquor wholesale business, and five years have not passed since the Defendant may revoke the Plaintiff’s license for the comprehensive liquor wholesale business pursuant to Article 15(2)1 of the Liquor Tax Act, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.