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

A. The Defendant’s status 1) The Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Promotion Act and the Management and Support of Organic Food, Etc. Act (hereinafter “Environmental-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act”).

(2) On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was designated as a certification body pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Act. (2) On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained certification of organic agricultural products from the Defendant for rice plants raised in rice fields (a total of 36,059 square meters, hereinafter “instant rice field”) located in the area (a total of 36,059 square meters, hereinafter “instant rice

(Effective Term: From October 11, 2016 to October 10, 2017; hereinafter referred to as "certification of this case") (No. 5).

1) We confirmed the following facts: (a) The Franchi Office of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service for the Franchisive Office of the Franchisive Office of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service for the Republic of Korea: (b) on April 18, 2017, the first issue was spreaded in the instant case.

B) On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a written confirmation stating that “The first proposal was spreaded on April 18, 2017” (However, the said written confirmation was written in a manner that the Plaintiff confirmed the small content of the employees C who work at the Office of the Happing Assistance to the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Agency of the Republic of Korea.”

(C) On April 21, 2017, the head of the Bupyeong-gu Office for National Agricultural Products Quality Management Support requested the Defendant to take measures under Articles 34(4) and 24(1)2 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act.

(B) On April 25, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his opinion to submit his opinion by May 15, 2017 (No. 2) as the Plaintiff intended to revoke the instant certification as it was used in the instant agenda (Evidence No. 1). As to this, the Plaintiff, on May 11, 2017, did not roots the first proposal in the instant case.

‘Presentation’ submitted a written opinion stating the content.

(B) On May 18, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant certification was revoked (No. 3).