logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.17 2018구합74822
영업정지 등 처분취소 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff has been engaged in import and sale business, such as imported food, and, i.e., manufacturing and processing business, with the trade name of “C” from Gangwon Man-gun B and 1st floor.

B. As a result, the Korean Food and Drug Safety Review Committee (Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) conducted an investigation into whether the Plaintiff was using inappropriate colors for companies that manufacture and sell cases, Maclass, etc. via the Internet, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiff imported and distributed the total amount of KRW 19,352,500 via 308 without an import declaration of the Maclass and the Maclass D containing the “Maclass and Blub S&D” prohibited from being used in Korea.

C. On January 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received without filing a report to the Plaintiff and sold it to an unspecified number of unspecified consumers; (b) imposed two months of business suspension (from January 17, 2018 to March 17, 2018) pursuant to Article 4 Subparag. 6 of the Food Sanitation Act; (c) Articles 20(1) and 34(1)1 of the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control; and (d) imposed penalty surcharges of KRW 19,352,50 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”; and (b) imposed penalty surcharges of the portion disputing the illegality of the Plaintiff.

On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the instant disposition, but was adjudicated by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

E. On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge that he/she imported without filing a report, etc., and was convicted of a fine of KRW 5 million by the Seoul Western District Court (No. 2018 High Court Decision 2010, Oct. 27, 2018).

(hereinafter “Related criminal case”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 evidence, Eul’s 4-1, and Eul’s 4-2, as a whole, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments.

2. Whether the imposition of the penalty surcharge in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 procedural.

arrow