logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.16 2017구합50526
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 2003, the location of the head office A, a corporation, the manufacture of rice tea, rice tea, Chinese medicine, etc., and wholesale retail, etc., established for its business purposes: the Incheon branch of Pyeongtaek-si C (the date of establishment: December 23, 2014).

B. On November 16, 2016, food sanitation inspectors belonging to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety established the Plaintiff’s place of business located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s manufacturing and keeping in freezing rice (2.96km x 22 boxes; hereinafter “instant product”) did not indicate any indication under the Food Sanitation Act, and notified the Defendant of this fact on November 14, 2016.

C. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) transferred A’s head office to Pyeongtaek-gu, Incheon on October 19, 2006; (b) transferred A’s head office from Seongdong-gu, Seoul on December 19, 2006 to 1 Dong-gu, Incheon on October 28, 2008; (c) transferred B’s head office to Pyeongtaek-si on December 18, 2014 (the foregoing G Dong head office was changed to the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the B); (b) the Defendant’s business permission ledger only stated the corporate registration number, business location, etc. as of the time the head office of A was located in Nam-dong, Incheon on October 19, 2006, and changed to 1 Dong-gu, Incheon on January 28, 2008; and (d) changed to 1 Dong-dong, Seoul on December 18, 2014 (the head office of the branch office of the B).

In full view of the above facts, the defendant is still aware that the head office of the corporation A still exists in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Gdong, and the disposition of this case against the corporation A.

arrow