Appropriateness of the revocation of the sales license for alcoholic beverages to a unauthorized sales business entity;

Unless there is a license for sales of alcoholic beverages other than household alcoholic beverages, the plaintiff sells alcoholic beverages other than household alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller for alcoholic beverages other than household alcoholic beverages. Thus, the above act constitutes "when the plaintiff, as a condition to revoke the license, sells such alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller"

Article 8 (License for Liquor Tax Act)

Liquor Tax Act Article 15 (Suspension of Sales of Alcoholic Beverages, etc.)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the revocation of the license for comprehensive alcoholic beverage wholesale business to the plaintiff on March 31, 2007.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 10, 2003, the Defendant issued a comprehensive liquor wholesale license to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 9 of the Liquor Tax Act, and imposed a condition that the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller, the license was revoked.

B. The Defendant: (a) sold alcoholic beverages to Gangnam-gu and Kim Jong-jin, a non-licensed seller; and (b) issued a false tax invoice with different contents while the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to Kim Jong-jin; and (c) on the ground that the amount of violation of the duty to issue the tax invoice is at least 10/100 of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages for each taxable period during the period from February of 2004 to January of 2006, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s comprehensive liquor wholesale license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act.

C. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 2, 2007, but was not notified of the decision on the above appeal by the date of closing argument of the case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant may file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case after the lapse of 90 days from the date the decision on the request for a trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes was received pursuant to Article 56 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the date the request for a trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes was filed. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case on April 23, 2007, when 90 days have not passed since the date the request for a trial was not notified of the decision on the request for a trial under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, even if 90 days have not elapsed from the date of the above request for a trial, the lawsuit of this case is legitimate as long as it is apparent that 90 days have elapsed from the date of the above request for a trial on July 17, 2008, which is the date of the closing of argument of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense of this case is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff sold 46,50,000 won and 67,610,000 won and issued a false tax invoice for the second half of 2005 to Kimjin who only licensed selling alcoholic beverages for domestic use. The Plaintiff’s act does not constitute a ground for revocation of a license under Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act for the first half of 2005. The Plaintiff’s act does not constitute a ground for revocation of a license under Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act.

(2) The Plaintiff did not sell alcoholic beverages to the Gangwon-do Governor.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 8 (License for Liquor Tax Act)

Liquor Tax Act Article 15 (Suspension of Sales of Alcoholic Beverages, etc.)

C. Determination

In 2005, the Plaintiff sold 144,110,000 won of other alcoholic beverages to Kimjin who only has a license to sell alcoholic beverages for domestic use. As such, insofar as Kimjin did not have a license to sell alcoholic beverages other than those for domestic use, the Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages other than those for domestic use to Kimjin who is a non-licensed seller. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above act constitutes the time when the Plaintiff sold those beverages other than those for domestic use to the non-licensed seller.

The Defendant may revoke the instant license on the ground that the foregoing act of the Plaintiff constitutes the conditions for revocation of the license as prescribed by the instant license (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu269, Nov. 13, 1984). Therefore, without having to determine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.