업무정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a pharmacist’s license number C, and registered as a pharmacy to the Defendant on September 7, 2012, and established and operated B pharmacy in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”).
B. While operating the instant pharmacy, the Plaintiff sold prescription drugs, such as over-the-counter drugs, such as 100 mblue, and mergululule 500mg, to the head of the veterinary hospital through the Internet websiteF (hereinafter “F”), which operated the instant pharmacy, several times.
(F) If the order and settlement are made through F, the Plaintiff’s act of selling medicines is to deliver them through the door-to-door line. (hereinafter “instant selling act”).
The Defendant, on June 20, 2013, deemed that the Plaintiff’s instant sales act was an act of selling drugs at a place other than a pharmacy regulated by Article 50(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and as to the Plaintiff, Article 76(1)3 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 50 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
Ⅱ Article 96 [Attachment 8] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 188, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) No. 25
Ⅱ The individual standards are as set out in Section 40.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the instant pharmacy’s business suspension period was one month (from July 19, 2013 to August 18, 2013) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.
On the other hand, on September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (No. 2013 high-level 21805). On the other hand, on September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for formal trial and is still pending in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 high-level 5192.
[Based on the recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 8, 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, and Eul evidence 8.