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

가. 원고는 주식회사 비앤비코리아(이하 ‘비앤비코리아’라고만 한다)에 기능성화장품인 ‘클라우드9블랑드화이트닝’ 및 ‘게리쏭9컴플렉스’(이하 ‘이 사건 각 화장품’이라 한다)의 제조를 위탁하여 판매하는 법인이다.

B. On August 21, 2015, the Superintendent of the Regional Food and Drug Administration issued an order to suspend the manufacture of each of the instant cosmetics for one month (from September 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015) on the grounds that the number of the test items of finished products was shipped without conducting the test of items in manufacturing each of the instant cosmetics.

다. 피고는 2015. 12. 7. 원고에게 이 사건 각 화장품을 위탁제조하여 판매하면서 제조번호별 품질검사 일부{‘클라우드9블랑드화이트닝’(제조번호 1D003L) : 히드로퀴논, 수은시험, ‘게리쏭9컴플렉스’(제조번호 1E004B) : 수은시험}를 실시하지 않고 판매하여 화장품법 제5조 제1항, 같은 법 시행규칙 제11조 제5호를 위반하였다는 이유로 화장품법 제24조 제1항 제6호, 같은 법 시행규칙 제29조 제1항 [별표7] 행정처분의 기준

2. Pursuant to item (f)(iii) of individual standards, each of the instant cosmetics was ordered to suspend the sale of each of the instant cosmetics for one month (from December 21, 2015 to January 20, 2016) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the Cosmetics Act imposes a duty to conduct a quality inspection on a manufacturer-seller, such as the Plaintiff, but does not specify the specific quality inspection. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not inspect the number of each of the instant cosmetics, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff violated the quality inspection duty even if it did not examine whether the quitoths were included in the instant cosmetics.