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

A. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a livestock processing business (food processing business) upon obtaining a business license from the Defendant.

B. On September 5, 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Special Judicial Police Officers conducted a sanitary inspection on the Plaintiff’s factory, and as a result, it was confirmed that the chickens 340 km, the distribution period of which was up to September 1, 2018, and 160 km, the expiration date of which was up to September 2, 2018 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant chickens”, without indicating it as “disusement”, was stored in the sea-going room in the factory by mixing it with normal raw material meat.

C. Accordingly, on November 16, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 37960,000 in lieu of a disposition of business suspension on the Plaintiff for the reason that the livestock products, the distribution period of which has expired, are not “disused” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 22, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 8, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff kept the products expected to be discarded, including the instant chickens, at the place where the indication for disposal is clearly made on the freezing and the area where the disposal is set up within the demarcated range.

Plaintiff

At the time of the sanitary inspection of the factory, the chickens was found to be together with the normal raw material meat in the oceandong room, not the product storage place for the above disposal. The reason is that the plaintiff's driver was aware of the plaintiff's forkying the plaintiff's forkying the chickens of this case, which was in the product storage place for the deep sea water disposal, was that the plaintiff's forkyal was erroneously moved to the above oceandong room. The time during which the chickens was in the oceandong room is merely a few parts.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not violate Article 31 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

Dor. The plaintiff is the same as the disposition in this case.