A. Whether a liquor sales business license should be revoked in the event of a violation falling under Article 18(1)8 of the Liquor Tax Act (affirmative)

B. Whether a license for alcoholic beverage sales business can be revoked even if the license did not specify such grounds for revocation as a condition for revocation (affirmative)

(a) In cases of a violation falling under Article 18 (1) 8 of the Liquor Tax Act, a license for a liquor sales business shall be revoked as necessary;

B. In the case of a violation of Article 18(1)8 of the same Act, where the licensing authority has granted a license and stated four grounds for the revocation of the license as grounds for the revocation of the license on the grounds for the revocation of the license, it is merely a subordinate officer of the reservation of the right to withdrawal, in addition to the grounds for revocation prescribed by the law, such revocation does not hinder the revocation of the license even if the license did not specify such grounds for revocation as

Article 18 (1) 8 of the Liquor Tax Act; Article 23 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13201 of Dec. 31, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu538 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 326)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu6650 delivered on October 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to Article 18 (1) of the Liquor Tax Act, in a case where a vendor of alcoholic beverages falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Government shall suspend the sales business or revoke his license in accordance with the classification as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13201 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that if a vendor of alcoholic beverages falls under the provisions of Article 18 (1) 8 of the Act or is punished for the subsequent disposition and punishment, the license for the sales business shall be revoked. Thus, in a case where a violation of subparagraph 8 of the above Article 18 (1) of the same Act occurs, the license for the sales business of alcoholic beverages shall be revoked, and there is no room for discretionary discretion as to whether to revoke the license (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu538, Dec. 27,

In addition, when the Defendant granted the instant alcoholic beverage sales license to the Plaintiff, and stated four grounds for revocation on the instant license, the Defendant merely set the grounds for revocation, other than the grounds for revocation as stipulated in the above statutes, as the subsidiary officer of the retained retained earnings, and thus, there is a violation of Article 18(1)8 of the above Act, even if the license did not specify such grounds for revocation as the conditions for revocation of license, it would be difficult to revoke the alcoholic beverage sales license.

In addition, even if the defendant is in a partnership with another person at the time of revoking the above license, it cannot be interpreted by limiting the application of Article 18 (1) 8 of the above Act to the extent that Article 18 (1) 8 of the above Act is in a partnership with another person, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit, and as long as the plaintiff, as determined by the court below, operates a partnership with the non-party during the period from September 11, 1989 to December 31, 190, it shall be deemed that there exists

For the same reason, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's revocation disposition is abuse of discretionary power and supported the defendant's revocation disposition of this case is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or misconception of facts

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho