[2] The case holding that the provisions of Article 4 (2) of the Guidelines for Origin Labeling of Agricultural Products, which are announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, cannot be deemed as a delegated matter by public notice under the Enforcement Rule of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, which is based on the Act and subordinate

[3] The meaning of raw materials subject to marking of origin where the processed goods are used as "raw materials of processed products" under Article 24 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act

[4] Whether the principle of protection of trust is applied to a court's trial on an administrative fine in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

[2] Article 24 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1389 of Jun. 30, 2001) which provides for detailed matters concerning the indication of processed products under the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Jun. 30, 2001) provides that "where processed products are used as raw materials, matters necessary for the indication methods, such as the location of the indication, size and color of letters, shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries," and it is only delegated technical and detailed matters concerning the indication methods, such as location of the indication of the indication, size and color of letters, and it is not delegated to the person subject to the indication of the indication methods, but not delegated to the person subject to the determination of the indication of the origin under the former Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1999-82 of Dec. 9, 1999).

[3] In light of the legislative intent of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 6399 of Jan. 29, 2001) which intends to allow consumers to properly choose by providing accurate information about the country of origin of agricultural and fishery products and processed products using agricultural and fishery products as well as the raw materials thereof, where the processed products are used as "raw materials of processed products" under Article 24 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17352 of Sept. 1, 2001), the term "raw materials subject to indication of origin" shall be deemed as "raw materials subject to indication of origin" if agricultural and fishery products are identified as different from those of the original raw materials of agricultural and fishery products through the chemical processing process, etc., if agricultural and fishery products are identified as processed products of raw materials, but if it is impossible to have an essential difference due to such processing process.

[4] A court's trial on an administrative fine pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is not an administrative litigation procedure to judge whether the administrative fine imposed by the competent authority is appropriate, but a court commences and decides ex officio. Thus, in principle, in a trial on an administrative fine, it shall not be an issue as to whether the principle of trust protection, such as the administrative litigation, has been violated. However, in a case where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for an offender to be unaware of his/her duty, and there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for him/her to expect him/her to fulfill his/her duty, or it is unreasonable for him

1. Interpretation of Article 24 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act;

A. Whether Article 4(2) of the Guidelines for Origin Labeling is binding in interpreting Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act

Although a public notice prescribed by the head of each administrative division is based on the law, if the contents of the regulation exceed the scope of delegation of the law, there is no room to acknowledge external binding force as a legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13474 delivered on November 26, 199).

Article 15(1) and (3) of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by Act No. 6399, Jan. 29, 2001; hereinafter the same) and Articles 24(1)3 and 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17351, Sep. 1, 2001; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that “The matters necessary for the method of indicating the place of origin of processed products, such as the location of the indication, size and color of letters, etc., shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.” This shall not only delegate technical and detailed matters concerning the method of indicating the country of origin, such as the location of the indication, size and method of displaying letters, and shall not be interpreted as delegated technical matters concerning the method of indicating the country of origin.”

Therefore, Article 4(2) of the Guidelines for Labeling of Agricultural Products (Public Notice of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1999-82, Dec. 9, 199; hereinafter the same) provides that "where processed agricultural products are used as raw materials of processed products, the indication of origin shall be indicated as raw materials of processed products used as raw materials." However, this cannot be deemed to constitute matters delegated by public notice under the Enforcement Rule of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, since it concerns those subject to the indication of origin, not technical matters concerning the method of labeling, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute matters delegated by public notice under the Enforcement Rule of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act. Therefore, in interpreting the Enforcement Decree of the former

B. Interpretation of “raw materials” under Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act

(1) Under Article 15(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act provides that “in the case of domestic processed products (including imported processed products that are processed in Korea), the place of origin shall be indicated according to the order of content of the raw materials used for the processed products.” In light of the legislative intent of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, where the processed products are used as raw materials for processed products under Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act to provide consumers with accurate information about the establishment of distribution order for agricultural and fishery products and processed products that are used as such, and to provide consumers with accurate information about the country of origin, the term “raw materials subject to the indication of origin” in cases where the processed products are used as raw materials for processed products under Article 24(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act shall be deemed to have no essential difference in the original level of agricultural and fishery products.

(2) 위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 제품에 주된 원료로 사용된 쌀 가공품인 혼합곡분, 미분, 활곡, 볶음쌀, 유기농 현미 등은 쌀을 뻥튀기하거나 분쇄한 것 등인데, 그 원료 가공품이 일반적으로 시중에 유통되는 것이 아니고, 원료 농수산물을 제품에 사용하기 위하여 단순 가공한 것에 불과하여 원료 농수산물인 쌀과 본질적인 차이가 있다고 보기 어려우므로, 이 사건 제품의 원산지를 표시함에 있어서는 쌀 가공품의 경우에는 그에 사용된 쌀을 원료로 보아야 한다.

2. Whether the principles of protection of trust are violated, and whether the grounds for exemption from the imposition of fines are justifiable;

A. A court's trial on a fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is not an administrative litigation procedure to judge whether the disposition of the fine for negligence imposed by the competent authority is appropriate, but rather an ex officio commencement and a decision is made by the court (see Supreme Court Order 98Ma2866, Dec. 23, 1998). In principle, in a trial on a fine for negligence, it is not an issue as to whether the principle of trust protection, such as the administrative litigation, has been violated in the administrative litigation, but it is not unreasonable for the violator to know his/her duty. However, in a case where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the violation to expect the performance of his/her duty, it is difficult to impose it on the party concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du5972, May 26, 2000).

B. In light of the above legal principles and records, the order of the court below, which is a fine for negligence trial, is not an issue as to whether the principle of trust protection has been violated, and on the other hand, it is difficult to regard the case where the agricultural products can not be used as it is in order to make the product like the reasoning type of the product of this case and the first processing can only be used by simple crushing, etc., and it is difficult to regard the case where the processed products are used as the processed products" under Article 4 (2) of the Guidelines for Indication of Origin of Agricultural Products as "the case where processed products are used as the processed products" under Article 4 (2) of the Guidelines for Imposition of Administrative Fines on the Ministry of Quality Control of Agricultural Products of the Republic of Korea, and the re-appellant asserted that the product of this case does not have to place a mark of origin pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Guidelines for Indication of Origin of Agricultural Products in this case.

3. Thus, the court below's decision of the court of first instance, which maintained the second instance court's decision at KRW 5,00,00 by applying Articles 38 (1) 3 and 15 (3) of the former Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, Article 24 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, Article 248 (1) and (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and Article 248 (1) and (2) of the former Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, on the ground that the product of this case, other than rice products, was reported as raw materials of the product of this case and thus, the country of origin labeling was in violation of the method of origin labeling

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)