2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are manufacturing and selling after obtaining certification from the Defendant for a kitchen garbage pulverr for kitchen use (hereinafter “each product of this case”) in the method of crushing and collecting from the Defendant as follows.

On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff (C) A (C) DE on the date of certification of the model name certification number, and on April 27, 2016, the Defendant purchased four models of the gas disposal and crushing machine including each product of this case through Internet shopping mall and agency around November 2017, and examined the conformity of the certification standards, such as manufacturing or transforming products differently from the certification contents.

As a result, it was confirmed that the structure alteration is possible to remove the secondary treatment apparatus and directly connect the main body of the product as it is possible to remove the connecting body of the parts of the equipment to recover food wastes of each product of this case (the parts consisting of a cater that functions as a oil network or oil network, the parts comprising a water network, etc.; hereinafter “the second treatment apparatus”) and the main body of the product (the parts physically crushinging food wastes), as shown in the attached Table 1.

The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs on March 20, 2018 pursuant to Article 11(1)2 of the Act on the Prohibition of Sale and Use of the Main Elimination (Ministry of Environment Notice No. 2017-13, hereinafter “the Notice”), on the grounds that it is possible to eliminate the secondary treatment apparatus and to link the main body with a melting unit of the product so that the alteration of structure can be possible in order to discharge all of the food wastes by removing the secondary treatment apparatus and connecting them with the enclosed scoops.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

2) The reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles is justifiable. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.