The act of making an intermediate wholesaler at a large-scale discount constitutes grounds for revocation of a license for alcoholic beverage sales.

Sales of alcoholic beverages in large scale at a large discount with household consumers as its main customer shall be subject to revocation of alcoholic beverage sales license.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation disposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 20, 2009 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2001, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was a Korea Co., Ltd. at the time of incorporation on March 8, 1994, and thereafter, the trade name was changed to the MMM test corporation on September 26, 2006, September 30, 2008, and as of September 30, 2008) registered the business of the Defendant on September 30, 201, at the establishment of BB store, a large store in Seoul ○○○-Gu BB 919-7, and reported the sale of alcoholic beverages at that time [the Plaintiff reported the sale of alcoholic beverages to the head of the competent tax office before it was amended by Act No. 9899, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “ Liquor Tax Act”); Article 8(3) of the former Liquor Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2013, Feb. 23, 2010).

B. The Defendant issued a business registration certificate to the Plaintiff and added the following sub-sections (hereinafter referred to as the “sub-sections”) with respect to the instant license.

O Business Scope: Only types of alcoholic beverages to be sold shall be retailed at the permitted place.

O Designated Conditions: The license shall be revoked if it violates the scope of the project.

If the registration of permission is revoked by other Acts and subordinate statutes, this license shall also be revoked.

C. From July 6, 2009 to July 31, 2009, Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted ‘illegal distribution control and inspection of alcoholic beverages on large discount stores'. During that process, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff violated the scope of the business of the instant subsidiary by engaging in intermediate wholesale activities.

D. On October 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the instant license against the Plaintiff as of October 23, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the scope of the business of the instant father on the ground that he committed an intermediate intermediary act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole legal theory

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) There is justifiable reason even if the company did not violate the scope of the business and violated the scope of the business.

(A) There is no clear standard on the classification of wholesale and retail of alcoholic beverages. Moreover, Article 73 of the former Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax Affairs (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 1829 of Apr. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Rules on the Management of Liquor Tax”) does not prohibit a large discount store from selling alcoholic beverages in excess of a certain quantity or capacity, but imposes an obligation to prepare and keep a liquor sales ledger, etc. In the event that alcoholic beverages are sold in excess of a certain quantity or capacity. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff sold a large quantity of alcoholic beverages to customers, it cannot be deemed as wholesale.

(B) The Plaintiff’s customer purchased a large quantity of alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff using multiple accounts, and it is practically impossible to monitor the customer who purchased alcoholic beverages and prevent the Plaintiff from purchasing a large quantity of alcoholic beverages. There is no intention or negligence on wholesale. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable for a violation of the scope of the business.

(2) The Sub-section of this case is null and void.

(A) The Defendant cannot add additional clauses because he did not have the discretion to the license of this case.

(B) The criteria and meaning of 'retail' within the scope of the business of the Sub-Section of this case are subjective, multilateral, and ambiguous.

(C) In comparison with the reason for suspending sales under Article 15(1) of the Liquor Tax Act, the instant father’s violation of the scope of business of “retailing” is far more serious violation of the obligation to revoke a liquor sales business license, and the instant father’s violation of the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution and the principle of guaranteeing property rights.

(D) Although Article 15(2) of the Liquor Tax Act sets forth the grounds for revocation as listed in the grounds for revocation and limits the grounds for revocation, the instant subsidiary, which extended the grounds for revocation through the form of vice-section in violation of the legislative intent, violates the principle of legality of administration, the principle of a rule of law, and the principle of statutory reservation of administrative disposition that is infinited.

(3) He did not observe the limits of the exercise of the right of withdrawal and did not deviate from the scope of the right of discretion or abused it.

(A) The need for the public interest to revoke the instant license, i.e., the necessity for the liquor tax preservation under Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act, is not recognized.

Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "when it is deemed necessary for securing liquor tax" means the time when it is deemed necessary to prevent liquor tax evasion, avoidance, and reduction of liquor tax due to delinquency of liquor tax, and to achieve the goals of collection of liquor tax as well as to prevent the reduction of liquor tax. Furthermore, Article 23 (1) and (3) of the Liquor Tax Act provides that a liquor seller is liable to pay liquor tax only on a shipper of alcoholic beverages and an importer of alcoholic beverages, and does not impose a liquor seller liability to pay liquor tax. Accordingly, the relevant sales business of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to the alcoholic beverage sales business directly connected to the alcoholic beverage manufacturing business and the alcoholic beverage import business. The plaintiff was not directly supplied with liquor tax by a manufacturer or importer of alcoholic beverages who is liable to pay liquor tax. Moreover, the plaintiff did not evade liquor tax, evade liquor tax, or fail to pay taxes

(B) In Article 15 of the Liquor Tax Act, the grounds for the disposition of suspension of sales and the disposition of revocation of license are divided, but the father of the instant case stipulates the disposition of revocation for violation of the scope of business.

(C) It is unreasonable for the current shareholder to take the instant disposition on the ground of the instant subsidiary’s violation of the scope of business of the instant subsidiary, which occurred on or around January 2008, much more than before September 2008, which had taken over management rights.

(D) The Plaintiff sells food, raw materials, etc. as well as alcoholic beverages. In the event that the instant license is revoked, the Plaintiff suffers enormous business losses due to the Plaintiff’s failure to sell other products as well as alcoholic beverages. The instant disposition is likely to avoid investment in the Republic of Korea, or to recover existing investments, by a foreign company, such as Tesold Group B.V., invested in the Plaintiff.

(E) The Plaintiff did not frequently educate the sales employees of alcoholic beverages from time to time to time, and did not encourage them to sell a large volume of goods. Since some of the Plaintiff’s employees participated in illegal activities for personal purposes regardless of the Plaintiff and carried out a large volume sale, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable to the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff, as set forth in the table below, sold 9,072 boxes from January 2, 2008 to February 10, 2008, to 239,500,800 won a unit price of 28,072 boxes from 11 to 26,400 won, consisting of 239,50,80 won, consisting of 11 POS (a system combining the functions of POF, cash registers, and computer terminals, as well as collecting and processing various information and data necessary for retail management.

(2) The sales proceeds were normally deposited to the Plaintiff.

(3) The sales volume of the Plaintiff’s BB stores increase in the oil, and the sales volume and sales volume of one day on July 2009, which increased in the sales volume of beer, are average of 80 boxes and 2,220,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including additional number), whether all pleadings are

D. Determination

(1) It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated the scope of the business of the instant subsidiary, and there was a justifiable reason for such violation.

(A) Wholesale business is a business that sells goods to other wholesalers or retailers, and retail business is a business that sells goods to the general public, which is a final consumer, and therefore there is no clear standard as to the classification of wholesale and retail. In addition, Article 72(3) of the Liquor Tax Management Regulation provides that "the retail and constructive retail business operator shall sell the purchased alcoholic beverages only to the household consumer." Thus, even though Article 73 of the Liquor Tax Management Regulation does not prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in excess of a certain quantity or capacity, the plaintiff cannot conduct a wholesale of alcoholic beverages in violation of the scope of business of the father of this case. As seen above, in light of the fact that the plaintiff sold a large quantity of 160 through 960 boxes at one time to 8, such as ChoA, etc., and that the plaintiff concentrated on the sale of alcoholic beverages to other wholesalers or retailers at the same time, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages from the end consumer, but sold them to others, and that the plaintiff sold them to others.

(B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s customer purchased alcoholic beverages at 11 pos only as seen earlier, rather than by using multiple accounts, and the purchase price was paid in full to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff had no intention or negligence on wholesale. Moreover, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the beer of a box of 160 boxes or 960 boxes that it is difficult to deem that the general household consumer was consumed once by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known that the Plaintiff violated the scope of the business of the “retail”. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable for the violation of the scope of the business.

(2) The assistant officer of this case shall be effective.

(A) Generally, the subordinate officer is invalid even if the binding act or the binding discretionary act is not a subordinate officer, and the subordinate officer was attached thereto. However, Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that "the head of the competent district tax office may determine the term of license, the scope of manufacture or sale, and the conditions to be complied with in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages when deemed necessary for securing liquor tax in granting a liquor sales business license." Thus, adding additional clauses to the scope of business related to the instant license of the Defendant is legally permissible regardless of whether the instant license is binding.

(B) The wholesale and retail of alcoholic beverages are not only possible to be classified as seen earlier, but also their criteria and meanings are not subjective, multilateral or ambiguous.

(C) It cannot be concluded that the violation of the scope of business stipulated in the Sub-Section of this case is a minor reason rather than the reason for suspension of sale stipulated in Article 15(1) of the Liquor Tax Act. In addition, in order to achieve the important public interest purpose of preserving liquor tax through the maintenance, etc. of order in the distribution of liquor pursuant to Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act, the Sub-section of this case adopted a necessary means to limit the scope of the Plaintiff’s business to "retailing" because it is a large discount store with household consumers as its main customers. In addition, in light of the fact that there is a possibility of undermining the preservation of liquor tax, such as where liquor is sold to non-licensed sellers in violation of the scope of business in the "retail", it is difficult to view that the revocation of a license for alcoholic beverage sales is a substantial sanction against the violation of the scope of business. Therefore, it is also difficult to deem that there is an essential violation of the Plaintiff’s property rights, which is a violation of the principle of prohibition of excessive ownership or property rights.

(D) The instant subsidiary officer limited the scope of the Plaintiff’s business to “retail” and determined that the license is revoked in the event that the Plaintiff violated the scope of the Plaintiff’s business, which is the reservation of the right of withdrawal. Therefore, even if the “violation of the scope of business” is not stipulated in the law as the grounds for cancellation of license, the Defendant may withdraw the instant license on the ground of the instant subsidiary officer’s “violation of the scope of business” on the ground of the instant subsidiary officer’s “violation of the scope of business.” This does not necessarily change the nature and nature of Article 15(2) of the Liquor Tax Act, and does not necessarily require special provisions on the reservation of the right of withdrawal. Even if Article 15(2) of the Liquor Tax Act lists the grounds for revocation of license on the limited basis of the conditions determined by the subsidiary officer under Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act, it cannot be said that the instant subsidiary officer prohibits the revocation of license if the conditions are met. This does not violate the principle of legality of administration, the principle

(3) The instant disposition not only complied with the limitations of the exercise of the right of withdrawal, but also does not deviate from or abuse the scope of discretion.

(A) Sales of alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller is likely to threaten the preservation of liquor tax, as it encouragess transaction without materials or disguised transaction, and may affect order in the distribution of alcoholic beverages and transaction of tax invoices. Therefore, the necessity for securing liquor tax is recognized as “the necessity for preventing the supply of alcoholic beverages to a wholesaler or retailer who is supplied alcoholic beverages without a license for alcoholic beverage sales” in the instant case.

(B) In addition, even if the instant secondary officer only determines the revocation (e.g., revocation) of a license as a restrictive measure when selling alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller, in light of the fact that there is a great need to preserve liquor tax, the instant secondary officer cannot be deemed to have exceeded the limit of the content, such as the principle of proportionality and equality.

(C) Even if the shareholders and the management rights of the Plaintiff change, the Plaintiff’s corporate personality maintains uniformity, and it is not unreasonable to cancel the instant license on the ground of the violation of the scope of business before the change in shareholders and the management rights.

(D) ① The Plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages in a large quantity and sold them to the wholesalers or retailers, thereby undermining order in the distribution of alcoholic beverages and indirectly causing risks to preserving liquor tax, ② the beer quantity sold by the Plaintiff in violation of the scope of business is large to 9.072 boxes, ③ the Plaintiff’s maintenance of order in the distribution of alcoholic beverages including not only the time of shipping alcoholic beverages from a manufactory or import of alcoholic beverages, but also the stage of sales from the manufacturing to the stage of each sales, will meet the requirements for securing liquor tax. ④ If the distribution order of alcoholic beverages is disturbed, it would be difficult to collect liquor tax in the end because there are many concerns that the distribution order of alcoholic beverages would disrupt the order in the distribution of alcoholic beverages, and ⑤ the distribution of alcoholic beverages would be directly related to public health and sanitation, but also have many negative aspects on society depending on their consumption mode, so it seems that there is a need to strictly control the sales of alcoholic beverages, and thus, it seems that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would result in a decrease in the public interest purpose of the Plaintiff’s investment.

(E) In light of the sale volume through a violation and the level of sales proceeds, the mere fact that the Plaintiff had frequently educated the employees selling alcoholic beverages about the sale procedures or matters to be cautioned at the time, and did not encourage the employees to make a mass sales, cannot be said to have not caused any cause attributable to the Plaintiff in relation to the violation of the scope of the business.

3. Conclusion

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