The revision of the Liquor Tax Act and the application of Acts at the time of occurrence of causes for revocation of liquor license.

The former Liquor Tax Act (Act No. 574 of Dec. 30, 1960) which was in force at the time when a person who obtained a license for the manufacture of a Tju and a medicinal liquor falls short of the manufacturing quantity of the medicinal liquor standard under the provisions of Article 15-2 (1) of the former Liquor Tax Act (Act No. 574 of Dec. 30, 1960) shall be applied to the causes which occurred at the time of the enforcement of the Act, as a matter of course. Thus, the former Liquor Tax Act shall be applied to the causes which occurred at the time of enforcement of the Act. Thus, even if the Liquor Tax Act was amended and Article 15-2 of the former Liquor Tax Act was deleted, and Article 16 of the former Liquor Tax Act was newly established, there is no change in the actual contents of the Act, so if the license is revoked after

Article 15-2 of the former Liquor Tax Act (Act No. 574), Article 16 of the former Liquor Tax Act (Act No. 826)

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that the disposition of revocation of a license for manufacture of medicinal Shares, which the Defendant granted to the Plaintiff on October 27, 1953, under Order No. 31 of January 10, 1962, against the Plaintiff on October 28, 1953, is invalid.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (License), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Cancellation), and Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Res. 6) which could presume the authenticity of the entire document due to the lack of dispute over the establishment of the official portion, the plaintiff had been engaged in the manufacturing business of medicinal and Takju by obtaining a licence for manufacture of medicinal and Takju from the director of the mid-gu Office of Tax Administration on December 28, 1953 from Jung-gu (detailed address omitted), Jung-gu (the disposition office at the time of disposition was in the jurisdiction of the defendant) and after obtaining a license for manufacture of medicinal and Takju from the director of the tax office on December 28, 1953 (the disposition office at the time of disposition was the head of the local tax office at the time of revision of the name, location, and jurisdiction of the local tax office at the time of disposition but the disposition was still in the jurisdiction of the defendant), the plaintiff could have cancelled the license for the short-term period of 15 months and 20.14 years after the above evidence No.

Article 15-2 (1) of the Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 574, Dec. 30, 1960) which provides the basis for the defendant's revocation of a manufacture license of this case was deleted by the amendment of the Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 826, Dec. 8, 1961), and the above revised Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 826, Jan. 1, 1962), was enforced from January 10, 1962, which provides that the defendant's disposition of this case should be based on the law in which the plaintiff's above manufacture license of this case would be revoked, and the revised Liquor Tax Act is obviously applicable to the violation of the former Liquor Tax Act, which is a basis for revoking the above revised Liquor Tax Act (amended by Act No. 574, Dec. 30, 1960). Therefore, the defendant's previous revised Liquor Tax Act's new provision of Article 325 of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act shall not apply to the above revised Liquor Tax Act.

(1) According to the former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act, the provisions of Article 15-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act for non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act or for non-use of the same Act for non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act. (2) The former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act for non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act shall apply to non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act. (3) The former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act for non-use of the same Act shall apply to non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act after non-use of the same Act for non-use of the same Act. (4) The former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act shall apply to non-use of alcoholic beverages for non-use of the same Act for non-use of the same Act for non-use of the same Act for non-use of the same Act for non-use of the same Act.

Secondly, the plaintiff's disposition of revocation of this case is revoked on October 27, 1953 and the plaintiff's disposition is revoked on January 28, 1954, and since the plaintiff obtained a license for manufacture of medicinal Shares and a license for manufacture of medicinal Shares on December 28, 1953, and the defendant alleged that the above disposition is void a year because there is an error in the designation of the object or a significant and obvious defect in the contents of the designation because the designation of the object is unclear. Thus, in the disposition of revocation of the manufacture of this case by the defendant, as alleged above, it is recognized that there is an error in the statement of the acquisition date of the manufacture of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, but since the defendant's disposition was the main purpose of revoking the disposition that was already licensed to the plaintiff, it cannot be recognized that there is a serious and obvious defect in the indication of the date of revocation. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition is invalid a year of this case's assertion that the plaintiff's disposition is invalid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity on the premise that the defendant's revocation disposition of the manufacture of this case is null and void as a matter of course is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)