(a) Where the right of revocation has been reserved as an assistant of an administrative act, whether the grounds for revocation are provided for in the Acts and subordinate statutes;

B. Whether the National Tax Service Directive No. 766 of the National Tax Service Directive violates Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act as a superior corporation (negative)

A. In a case where the right of cancellation is reserved as an omission of an administrative act, the administrative agency that performed the administrative act in question may revoke the administrative disposition even in a case where the cause of cancellation is not only prescribed by the law, but also when there is a violation of duty, where there is a change in circumstances, where the right of cancellation is reserved, or where the need for a significant public interest arises.

B. The National Tax Service Directive No. 766 of the National Tax Service Directive provides for general guidelines and corresponding standards concerning the handling of liquor tax affairs for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue of liquor tax, and the National Tax Service's overall handling of liquor tax affairs can be determined, unless otherwise provided for in Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act, unless otherwise provided for in the laws and regulations, it shall not be deemed that the grounds for revoking a license by the reserved cancellation right or the grounds for revoking a license and the period for suspending a license are determined, and it shall not be deemed that the National Tax Service violated Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act.

(a) Article 1(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act; Article 75(2) of the Regulations on the Management of Liquor Tax by National Tax Service Directive No. 766; Articles 8 and 14 of the Addenda;

Unlimited Partnership Young-Namer chain

Head of Jinju Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu22 delivered on March 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 6 are collected together.

1. Article 11 of the Liquor Tax Act provides that when it is deemed necessary for preserving liquor tax, the Government may designate the license period, the scope of the manufacture or distribution business, or the conditions to be observed in the manufacture or distribution business of alcoholic beverages, or the manufacture or distribution business of alcoholic beverages, or in the manufacture or distribution business of alcoholic beverages, the liquor tax may directly and indirectly affect the establishment of distribution order, such as where it is clearly clear that Article 21 of the Liquor Tax Act applies to the above sales business and it can affect the liquor tax directly and indirectly, since the liquor sales business cannot be deemed to be unrelated to the liquor tax, the liquor tax may be collected from the manufacturer, and the sale business cannot be designated as a license condition for the distributor by applying Article 11 on the grounds that there is no relation between the preservation of liquor tax and the distribution business.

2. According to the legal determination by the court below, when granting a license for a liquor sales business to the plaintiff on September 26, 1979, the defendant restricted the scope of business that the plaintiff should act as a broker only for affiliated member stores or branches, and if the plaintiff violated the scope of business, the license was revoked. This reservation of the right of cancellation (not to cancel the administrative act due to defects in the establishment of the administrative act, but to cancel it due to new circumstances that occurred thereafter) among the officers of the administrative act, where the violation of the duty is not included in the law, where the right of cancellation of the narrow meaning is reserved, or where a change in the situation occurs due to the necessity of important public interest, the administrative agency which engaged in the administrative act can cancel the administrative disposition. Thus, even though Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act does not constitute the grounds for cancellation of the license, the defendant can only cancel the license with respect to the affiliated member stores or branches as a disposition agency which engaged in the license for the liquor sales business in this case and can only cancel the license for the plaintiff's own reason and its nature.

3. The grounds for cancellation by the right of cancellation reserved as an appendant to an administrative act are, unless otherwise provided in the statutes, where there is a change in the situation, where the right of cancellation is reserved in a narrow sense, or where there is a need for a significant public interest. The National Tax Service Directive No. 766 of the National Tax Service Directive provides for general guidelines and corresponding standards concerning the disposition of liquor tax affairs for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue. The National Tax Service Directive No. 766 of the National Tax Service Directive provides internal regulations that provide for the general guidelines and corresponding standards concerning the disposition of liquor tax affairs for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue. Thus, the National Tax Service's decision that, unless otherwise provided in Article 18 of the Liquor Tax Act, all liquor tax affairs can be determined by the reservation right, the grounds for cancellation of the license, the grounds for the suspension of license, and the period thereof shall not be deemed to be an unlawful act, and it shall not be deemed to violate

4. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when granting a liquor sales license to the plaintiff company on September 26, 1979, the court below confirmed that the defendant violated the scope of business by selling alcoholic beverages equivalent to the amount of KRW 4,659,500, which is equivalent to the amount of KRW 4,500, to the non-party, who is not the affiliated member store, without issuing a tax invoice, and the defendant revoked the plaintiff company's liquor sales business license in accordance with Article 75 (2) and subparagraph 14 of the Addenda of the above Section 14 of the Liquor Tax Act. If the plaintiff company collected evidence from the court below, the judgment below is just, and the plaintiff company granted a conditional license that only its affiliated member store or branch must act as a broker for alcoholic beverages, and if the plaintiff company acts as a broker for alcoholic beverages in violation of the scope of business scope, the plaintiff company did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff violated the plaintiff's liquor tax law because it did not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's liquor tax law.

5. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim by supporting the defendant's revocation of the liquor sales business license of this case is just and there is no reason for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no criticism or criticism of the confirmation of the fact belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court without the reason for the judgment or the original adjudication as a single opinion, on the grounds that the interpretation and application of Article 11, Article 18, Article 21 of the Liquor Tax Act, Article 16 and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 75 of the Liquor Tax Act, or Article 75 of the Rules on the Management of Liquor Tax Affairs, and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)