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

A. The Plaintiff has obtained certification of eco-friendly organic agricultural products from the Defendant regarding the Kenya and new products cultivated by the Plaintiff since 2009 under the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Promotion Act and the Act on the Management of and Support for Organic Food, Etc. (hereinafter “Environmental-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act”).

B. On the other hand, on March 31, 2014, the Defendant: (a) collected samples from an organic farm care center cultivated by the Plaintiff on an eco-friendly-certified parcel B; and (b) requested the National Agricultural Products Quality Control Service to examine residual agrochemicals in the Chungcheong support; and (c) as a result, Dalofrid (Imidacoprid), which is an organic pesticide ingredient, was detected 0.0747mg/km (hereinafter “the result of the instant inspection”).

C. On April 9, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the instant inspection, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition revoking the certification of eco-friendly agricultural products on April 21, 2014. After requesting the Plaintiff to hold a hearing and holding a hearing on May 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the certification (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion was notified by the Defendant of the result of the instant inspection on April 7, 2014, and requested the Plaintiff to collect samples from Hancheon-gun Agricultural Technology Center Environment Certification Team affiliated with public officials, and to examine residual agrochemicals in Hancheon-gun Agricultural Science Co., Ltd., Ltd., but where pesticide ingredients are not detected, average temperature was nonexistent at the time of the Defendant’s collection of her work, and there was no situation that is likely to occur since the Plaintiff already her growth and growth, and the Plaintiff did not need to spread pesticides around that time. In light of the above, the result of the instant inspection is an external factor.