logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017구단20716
영업정지처분취소
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. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) imported 22,950km from “SUPPER GOD FOD FOD FAING LIMFD” as an exporter located in China; (b) filed an import declaration with the Defendant on January 9, 2017 under Article 20(1) of the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control (hereinafter “Import Food Act”); and (c) the said import declaration was accompanied by a forged sanitary certificate (hereinafter “instant sanitary certificate”).

B. As to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2017, the Defendant provided that the former provisions shall apply, notwithstanding the amended provisions of attached Table 13, to the criteria for administrative disposition regarding the violation prior to the enforcement of the Rules, on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed an import declaration on the freezing of China, attaching the instant sanitary certificate that was forged, with Article 20(2) and Article 29 of the Imported Food Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the former Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1371, Feb. 22, 2017; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the instant case”).

Pursuant to Article 27(1)7 and Article 46, 15 days of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 5, and 12 (if any, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons as to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

1. In order for the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the grounds for disposition to constitute “an act of filing an import declaration by fraud or other improper means” as prescribed in Article 20(2) of the Imported Food Act, there is insufficient objective fact that the instant sanitary certificate was forged, and the Plaintiff conceals it with knowledge of the forgery or forgery of the instant sanitary certificate.

arrow