Unlimited Partnership Youngnam Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Young-skin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Jinju Tax Office

February 16, 1984

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of the Defendant’s revocation of alcoholic beverage sales license on August 13, 1982 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, on August 13, 1982, revoked a liquor sales business license for the plaintiff company as the second half of 1265-79, did not conflict between the parties, and considering the whole purport of pleadings, the defendant, on September 26, 1979, granted a license for a liquor sales business to the plaintiff company on the basis of the provisions of Article 11 of the Liquor Tax Act, restricting the scope of the business of the plaintiff company to arrange only alcoholic beverages to its affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated stores or branch offices, and then revoked the license if the plaintiff company acts as a broker in violation of the scope of its business. However, on June 26, 1982, the plaintiff company did not violate the above provision of Article 11 of the Liquor Tax Act to the non-party 1,22, Eul's sales business license for alcoholic beverages which was not affiliated affiliated affiliated affiliated member stores, and the plaintiff company did not violate the provision of Article 15 of the Liquor Tax Act to the non-party 1, the plaintiff company's sales business order.

However, the plaintiff company concluded a franchise store agreement with the non-party 1 on June 26, 1982, and sold gold 3,534,500 won to them on the 26th of the same month following the following day, so at the time when the plaintiff company sold the above alcoholic beverages, the non-party becomes the member store of the plaintiff company at that time the plaintiff company violated the scope of its business, and thus the defendant's revocation disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff company violated the scope of its business. Thus, the plaintiff company sold alcoholic beverages above to the non-party 1, 1982, and Eul evidence 1-3 of the presumption that the authenticity is true, and the plaintiff company violated the above provision of subparagraph 6-2 of this case and Eul evidence 1-3 of this case, and there was no problem as to the sale, and since the plaintiff company's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's testimony and the above 25th.

Second, since the plaintiff company expressed its intent to sell liquor to the above non-party when mediating alcoholic beverages, if the non-party company expresses its intention to purchase it, it shall be deemed to have entered into a franchise agreement. Therefore, even if the franchise agreement with the plaintiff company and the non-party was entered after the transaction, as above recognition, the non-party argued that the non-party was the member shop of the plaintiff company as of the purchase date of the pertinent alcoholic beverages from the plaintiff company, but the non-party's chain store head office shall notify its situation to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the pertinent franchise within seven days at the time of joining or cancelling the sales contract (Article 60 of the above provision) of Article 83 of the Liquor Tax Act (Article 60 of the above regulation) which provides that the non-party company's membership in the above franchise store should be considered as a document and it is reasonable to acknowledge that the non-party company violated the contract's intention to sell it (the non-party company's non-party 2) and the non-party 2's opinion to issue the plaintiff 26.

Sixth, Plaintiff Company obtained a license for alcoholic beverage sales business on August 26, 1978 after it registered its business on September 1, 1974, and on September 26, 1979, imposed additional clauses on the scope of business before the license on the grounds of the provisions of Article 11 of the Liquor Tax Act when it obtains a license for a business place transfer on September 26, 1979. The conditions for business scope or compliance under Article 11 of the Liquor Tax Act refer to the conditions that can be designated when it is deemed necessary for preserving liquor tax, and the liquor tax can only be collected from the manufacturer of alcoholic beverages under Article 21 of the Liquor Tax Act, so the Plaintiff Company, a pure distributor, who does not have relations with the liquor tax collection, is also in violation of the provisions of Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act for the purpose that the license for alcoholic beverage sales business cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff Company as well as the above provisions of Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act for the reason that the above conditions are not violated.

Sixth, under Article 75 (2) and Article 75 (1) 14 of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax, which is one of the criteria of the disposition of cancellation in this case, the case where a wholesaler sells liquor to a wholesaler and a retailer sells it to a retailer other than a household consumer. However, in this case where the plaintiff company sold liquor to the non-party O Young-gu, a retailer, this case does not constitute any of the above violation of the scope of business, and thus, the above disposition of cancellation in this case cannot be avoided from being illegal at this point, but it is clear that Article 75 (2) 14 of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax, which is not dispute, provides that the above disposition of cancellation in this case is also a violation of other designated conditions along with the scope of business as alleged in the cancellation of the license. However, according to the statement of Gap evidence No. 22, it cannot be accepted since the defendant's revocation of a license for a liquor sales business to the plaintiff company as a condition of designation.

Finally, the plaintiff company's representative is a company designated as Schlage's headquarters for the purpose of the distribution structure distribution company and the price stabilization from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and its employees reach 100 or more workers and 4.8 billion won. Thus, if the plaintiff company's license for the alcoholic beverage sales business is revoked due to the above reasons, the plaintiff company will lose its employee's livelihood. In addition, the plaintiff company is designated as the mobilization company under display or emergency and is subject to the suspension of company's business and all business activities to be converted into the supply base in charge of the supply of the daily products from the Gyeongnam National Assembly. Considering these circumstances, the plaintiff company's disposition cannot be exempted from the defendant's disposition because it goes beyond the limit of its discretionary power to the above illegal disposition. Thus, if the plaintiff company's sales business of alcoholic beverages is in violation of the regulations of the National Tax Service's order, the plaintiff company's manufacturer is supplying the plaintiff's store and its employee's store store's sales business to the plaintiff company and its employee.

Therefore, the defendant's revocation disposition of the sales business license of this case against the plaintiff is legitimate, and the plaintiff's principal claim seeking revocation is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

March 15, 1984

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)