beta
Text
1. The imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 11620,00,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on May 29, 2014 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff operated the Home Pluxing Point, which is a large retailer located in Jung-gu, Seoul. From January 9, 2012 to July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was supplied by the company “A” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant supplier”) with frozen and shellfish, thereby displaying and selling the instant product for three days.
B. On May 29, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 1,1620,000 in lieu of the seven days of business suspension pursuant to Articles 7, 75, and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “FFF fishery products in the condition of cooling are displayed for sale for more than 24 hours for three days and violated the standards for preservation and distribution” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant product was displayed and sold for three days is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s display and sale. However, in light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition should be revoked on an unlawful basis. (A) The instant product is packaging fishery products that were operated using the advanced packing method (MAP method) and such sale does not constitute a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus, does not constitute a violation of the Act, even if the Plaintiff’s act is in violation of the Act, even if the Plaintiff’s act was aware of the instant fishery product as a processed food or refrigerating food, not a freezing food under the Act, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any intent to violate the Act, and therefore, is not liable.
C) Furthermore, even if the sales volume are insignificant and there is no risk to the people, the Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge in lieu of the 7th day of business suspension, which is the maximum limit of the disposition standards, is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.
2 The facts of recognition are as follows in full view of Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 8, and the whole purport of arguments.