Gwangju District Court 2008Guhap3272 ( October 21, 2010)

early 208 Mine3750 (No. 11, 2009)

If alcoholic beverages are sold to a non-licensed dealer, they shall be subject to grounds for revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses.

The sales of alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed alcoholic beverage seller, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice different from the fact in the name of the entertainment business establishment, which constitutes grounds for revocation of alcoholic beverage licenses.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Limited Liability Company ○ Alcoholic Beverages

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the license for alcoholic beverage sales business against the plaintiff on August 21, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Issues and reasons of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is (1) whether the Defendant’s disposition of revocation of a license for liquor sales business u300 on the ground of a violation of subparagraph 2 of the conditions of license designation against the Plaintiff is unlawful as it is based on an additional note without legal basis; (2) whether the Plaintiff violated the conditions of license designation (Prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages to a non-licensed seller) and Article 15(2)4 of the Liquor Tax Act (10/100 or more of the total sales amount by taxable period under the Value-Added Tax Act), and (3) whether the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary authority.

On the issues (1) The first instance court determined that the instant disposition based on subparagraph 2 of the licensing designation condition No. 2 is lawful on the ground that the revocation requirement constitutes the reservation of the revocation right as an agent of an administrative act, and that the administrative agency, which performed an administrative act, may revoke the relevant disposition in certain cases, even if the grounds for revocation are not provided for in the statutes.

(2) The first instance court acknowledged the following facts: (a) there was no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff’s payment of wages to ParkBA, who was employed by the Plaintiff as an employee; (b) ParkBA sold alcoholic beverages to his business partners who are not the Plaintiff’s existing business partners (the Plaintiff was paid with the sales proceeds plus 5-8% of the amount supplied by the Plaintiff); (c) around June 2007, KimB transferred its business rights to other persons; (d) KimB was sentenced to a fine for a crime of supplied alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff without a comprehensive liquor wholesale business license; and (e) the Plaintiff’s submission of a false document stating that the Plaintiff’s sales proceeds would depend on the Plaintiff’s business partners during the period during which the Plaintiff asserted that ParkB had been employed as an employee of ParkB; (b) the Plaintiff’s submission of a false document stating that ParkB had not been made to the Plaintiff’s sales business partners, and (c) the Plaintiff’s submission of a false document stating that ParkB had not been made to the Plaintiff and its sales business partners.

On the issues (3), the first instance court determined that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the grounds for revocation of the instant license for alcoholic beverage sales business constituted a necessary reason for revocation.

In light of the allegations and the reasons corrected by the Plaintiff in this court, the first instance court’s determination is justifiable in view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was treated as retired at a similar time in the manner indicated by the Plaintiff as his employee; and (b) the money was transferred from the account of EE’s National Agricultural Cooperative Federation account and the account of ○ Bank account of leF to the Plaintiff’s account of Kim H, an accounting employee, Kim H’s ○ Bank account.

Therefore, the reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the entry of No. 26-2 in the column for recognition of No. 3, and the entry of No. 39, No. 40-1, No. 2, and No. 27-1, and No. 27 in the column for recognition of No. 3; and (b) the addition of No. 5, No. 6, and No. 9 to No. 12 in the court of first instance as follows; and (c) the entry of No. 41 in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of the entry of No. 41 in the evidence additionally submitted by the plaintiff to this court, which falls short of the first instance court's recognition of No. 3 as evidence.

2. Parts in height:

A. The fifth and sixth △△△△ entertainment tavern (for a business proprietor, Doz. Doz) of the first instance court, as the △△△△△ entertainment tavern (for a business proprietor, Doz. Doz.),

B. On April 22, 2005, the first instance court’s 5th to 12th sentence, “New II” obtained a liquor retail business license from the Defendant on April 22, 2005, with the trade name, which is a department store (the location of business is transferred to ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, △△△△△, 897-12, which is the Plaintiff’s head office around April 2006), and thereafter, the name of the business operator of the ▽▽▽▽△△△ department store was changed from New II on November 23, 2006 to DD, which is the wife of KimB, and KimB operated the ▽△△△ department store in the name of the wife, and made a report on business closure on January 4, 2007.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.