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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s revocation disposition of revocation of a license for a wholesale business specializing in alcoholic beverages against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013 and revocation of a disposition of reduction of alcoholic beverage delivery to each company listed in the separate sheet on September 9, 2013, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in the specialized wholesale business of imported alcoholic beverages at ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○.

B. From April 8, 2013 to May 27, 2013, the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process of alcoholic beverages with the Plaintiff, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s sale of alcoholic beverages to ○○○○ Industries, Co., Ltd. and the distribution industry (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Industries, etc.”) for the purpose of use from June 1, 2010 to August 23, 2010; ② from January 21, 2011 to January 28, 2011, the head of the Busan Regional Tax Office supplied both alcoholic beverages to Ga without a alcoholic beverage license, but omitted the sales report; ③ from January 26, 2011 to April 25, 2011, he/she confirmed the Plaintiff’s sale of alcoholic beverages under the name of the former trading company’s broker and notified the Defendant of the registration of the Plaintiff’s trading company’s transfer of the relevant alcoholic beverages to ○○○’s employees.

C. Accordingly, on August 5, 2013, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s license for import alcoholic beverage wholesale business (including specific alcoholic beverage wholesale business) (hereinafter “instant revocation disposition”).

D. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant revocation lawsuit, and on August 21, 2013, “the validity of the instant revocation disposition is suspended until the instant judgment is rendered” was suspended.

E. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff received a stay of execution as seen above, the Defendant notified each company listed in the separate sheet, which is the purchaser of the Plaintiff, to reduce the volume of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff by 50% until the final and conclusive date of the instant judgment (hereinafter “instant reduction disposition”), based on Article 91(3) of the Regulation on the Management of Liquor Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 1966, Jan. 1, 2013), and notified the Plaintiff of the reduction disposition.

F. On January 9, 2014 after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition of revocation and reduction, but was dismissed on December 17, 2014.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the instant disposition of revocation

① The Plaintiff employed two employees of ○○ Masters who can not engage in a business due to the suspension of a license for alcoholic beverage sales, and sold alcoholic beverages to ○○ Masters’ customers by taking over two vehicles of ○ Masters’ ○○ Masters’ . It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff lent a license to ○ Masters’ ○○ Masters’ . As such, the Plaintiff directly sold alcoholic beverages to ○ Masters’ ○ Masters ○

② Although the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages for entertainment restaurant to ○○ Industries, etc., the said companies were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, the Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed licensee, regardless of whether the Plaintiff violated the licensing conditions.

③ The Plaintiff, as an employee of a company in Do, who obtained a liquor license, only lent alcoholic beverages to the company in Do, Do and Do, and not supplied alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed person.

④ The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present his opinion under the Administrative Procedures Act in making the above reduction disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s license for import alcoholic beverage wholesale business received from the Defendant is subject to the designation of the following terms:

Terms of Designation

I cancel the license in any of the following cases:

1. Where it violates the scope of business;

2. Where he/she has sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed dealer;

3. Where it is found that he has obtained a license by deceiving the fact satisfying the requirements for license; and

4. When he/she sells alcoholic beverages without a prior approval during the period of sales suspension.

5. Where he/she is punished or disposed of under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the sale, brokerage or disguised transaction of non-data or alcoholic beverages, by the same new offense within one year from the date of receipt of such punishment or disposition;

6. Where the amount of sale or disguised transaction of non-data alcoholic beverages is 10/100 or more of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages by value-added tax taxable period.

2) From June 1, 2010 to August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff sold ○○ Industry, a license for a constructive retail sales business, with the purpose of its use as an entertainment restaurant (total sales sales amounting to KRW 518,561,029).

3) From January 21, 2011 to January 28, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied Park Ga with no alcoholic beverage license in the form of lending 525 boxes of both sides, such as a window (a total of 89,715,000 won) from the window, etc. However, Park Ga filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages (around Busan District Court 201Ga4423) in which Park Ga did not pay it.

4) The Plaintiff was subject to the suspension of alcoholic beverage sales licenses (from January 26, 2011 to April 26, 201), and entered into a consignment contract with ○○○ Company during the period of the said license suspension. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with 4% of the wholesale price. Pursuant to the above contract, the Plaintiff registered two employees and two vehicles of ○○ Company as the Plaintiff’s employees and vehicles, and issued a tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name while supplying alcoholic beverages to the existing business partners of ○○ Company according to the said employees’ business. After the termination of the said contract, two employees and two vehicles were returned to ○○ Company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9

Purport

D. Determination

1) As to the instant disposition of revocation

A) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff lent a liquor sales license to ○○ Company

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 9, and the witness’s testimony in a part of the witness B, namely, ① entering into a consignment contract with the Plaintiff during the period of suspension of alcoholic beverage sales license and registered the vehicle with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appears to have been paid 4% of the sales in return for the transaction; ② the business of the existing customer of the ○○○○○○○ Company is entirely the employee of the ○○○ Company, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the said business; ③ the employee and the vehicle registered with the Plaintiff were returned to the ○○○ Company upon expiration of the period of suspension of alcoholic beverage sales license; and ③ the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the ○○○ Company, even though they were responsible for the suspension of alcoholic beverage sales license and on the account, and the Plaintiff lent the alcoholic beverage sales license to the ○○ Company. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a case where alcoholic beverages are sold to a non-licensed licensee

The fact that the Plaintiff sold the share of entertainment restaurant to the ○○○ Industry, etc., which is a license holder for deemed a retail sales business, is as seen above. As long as the ○○ Industry, etc. did not grant a license for handling the share of entertainment restaurant, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licenser.

In addition, in relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion that he supplied alcoholic beverages to Si/Gun through Park-A, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to Si/Gun, a corporation other than ParkA, and instead, he/she received a favorable judgment by filing a claim for damages against ParkA as seen earlier. Therefore, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C) Whether it constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power

Article 15 (2) of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "the head of the competent tax office shall revoke a license where a licensee for alcoholic beverage sales falls under any of the following subparagraphs." Thus, the head of the competent tax office must revoke a license for alcoholic beverage sales in cases where there are grounds for violation under the above subparagraphs, and it is difficult to deem that there are discretion to revoke a license for alcoholic beverage sales business. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the fact that the disposition of revocation in

2) As to the reduction disposition of this case

A) Whether it is irrelevant to the necessity of preserving liquor tax

The purpose of the Liquor Tax Act, which employs a licensing system for manufacture and sales business of alcoholic beverages, is to effectively secure liquor tax revenues and appropriate them for the financial demand of the State, and to supervise the business of collecting liquor tax by a seller of alcoholic beverages who actually collects liquor tax while in charge of distribution process of alcoholic beverages. In light of the legislative intent of Article 40 of the Liquor Tax Act, which allows a manufacturer or a seller of alcoholic beverages to issue an order necessary for transfer, etc. when deemed necessary for preserving liquor tax, etc., the establishment of distribution order of alcoholic beverages directly and indirectly affect the preservation of liquor tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed as irrelevant to the necessity of preserving liquor tax. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B) Whether it violates the principle of statutory reservation

According to Article 40 of the Liquor Tax Act and Articles 45, 47 and 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the competent tax office may, if deemed necessary for preserving liquor tax, order the manufacturer or the seller of alcoholic beverages to take necessary measures for raw materials, quality, quantity, time, method, other matters in the manufacture, storage, transfer, acquisition or movement of alcoholic beverages.

Article 40 of the Liquor Tax Act; Articles 45, 47, and 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act; Article 91(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax (National Tax Service Directive No. 1966, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 91(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax; and Article 201(2) of the Notice on the Standard of Quantities of Delivery Quantity by Manufacturers, Importers, Importers, and Sellers (National Tax Service Notice No. 2012-23, Jun. 29, 2012) requires the suspension of execution with respect to the disposition in this case; thus, the said Act

C) Whether the retroactive application is unlawful

As above, based on Article 91(3) of the Liquor Tax Management Regulations and Article 3 of the Notice of Standard Quantities of Shipment Quantity for Indecent Manufacturers, Importers, and Sellers, the instant disposition was issued on August 21, 2013 on the grounds that the Plaintiff was determined to suspend the revocation of a license by the court after the Plaintiff was revoked of a liquor sales business, and the notice was made by the National Tax Service on September 1, 2006 and August 1, 2007.

Since the amendment of Article 2007-24, the same standard for reduction is continuously stipulated. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above notification was retroactively applied due to the reasons prior to the enactment of the notification is without merit.

D) Whether the Administrative Procedures Act is in violation

The direct party to the instant reduction disposition is not the Plaintiff but each company listed in the Plaintiff’s Schedule as the purchaser. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not reasonable on the ground that the Plaintiff, not the direct party, did not notify the Plaintiff of the matters stipulated in Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act in advance or give an opportunity to present opinions. Thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.