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

A. The Plaintiff is a pharmacist who establishes and operates a pharmacy with the trade name “C pharmacy” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Mgu. (hereinafter “C pharmacy”).

The plaintiff's wife D has worked as an employee at the pharmacy of this case.

B. D, on May 14, 2012, sold 3,000 won as an over-the-counter medication (hereinafter “the instant medicine”) to female customers with whom the name of 50 middle-class customers, who found the instant pharmacy, could not know of the names of 50 middle-class customers.

Article 44(1)3 and (3) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 11251, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”); Article 76(1)3 and (3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 96 [Attachment 8] of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 160, Sept. 26, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) that prohibits sales of underlying drugs

Ⅱ Article 81(1) and (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 33 [Attachment 2] subparag. 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24479, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

C. On November 19, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 5,700,000 in lieu of ten (10) days of business suspension pursuant to the following applicable statutes (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that D without a pharmacist’s license sold the instant drug.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, and 6 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful for the following reasons.

1. The instant disposition was taken by so-called “Pampas” as evidence of the film recording the process of selling the instant drug by Kameras, and it was intentionally conducted by Da who is not qualified as a pharmacist.