1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. The defendant can not bring an action of this case without going through the ruling of the administrative appeal, and the plaintiff's decision on the administrative appeal has not been made even at the time of the closing of argument. Thus, under Article 18 (2) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, if no adjudication is made even after 60 days have passed from the date of the request for administrative appeal, a revocation lawsuit may be brought without going through the ruling of the administrative appeal. As seen earlier, the fact that the plaintiff filed an appeal on February 2016 is the fact that the plaintiff filed an appeal on the ground of the judgment on February 201, and as long as the decision was not made even after the lapse of 60 days from the date of closing of argument, the lawsuit of this case

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) The plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the prime distributor under a contract with the prime distributor, and the prime distributor sold them to the consumers.

The Plaintiff is merely a direct transport and delivery of alcoholic beverages to consumers for convenience, not a sale of alcoholic beverages to consumers.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to the prime distribution is a false tax invoice, or that the tax invoice was not issued even when the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the consumers.

The grounds for suspending a license under Article 15(1)4 of the Liquor Tax Act are premised on the fact that a licensee of alcoholic beverages violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The Plaintiff only supplied alcoholic beverages according to a contract with Seowon Distribution and issued a tax invoice, and there was no intention to avoid the awareness of the issuance of a false tax invoice or tax, so there was no intention to violate the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code.