1. On December 27, 191, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s provision of Article 2 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which provides that the name of manufacturing business and/or pharmaceutical products under Article 17 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which is no longer than 5 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, shall be deemed to have been permitted under Article 17 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and that the Defendant’s provision of Article 1 of the latter Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which is no longer necessary for the first time for manufacturing business and/or 2 of the same Act, shall be deemed to have been permitted under Article 17 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and that the latter’s provision of Article 9 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which is no longer necessary for the first time for manufacturing business and/or 1 of the same Act, shall be deemed to have been amended by Article 17 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and that the latter’s provision of the same Act, which is no longer necessary for the first time for manufacturing business and/or 2 of the same Act, shall be deemed to have been amended to the latter.

2. The "Act", "Rules", and "Permission Guidelines" refer to drugs, non-pharmaceutical drugs, cosmetics, medical appliances, or sanitary supplies of this case as well as "drugs, etc.", unlike Article 5 (1) 2 of the "Permission Guidelines" only provide for the name of "drugs, etc.". Thus, Article 5 (1) 2 of the "Permission Guidelines" cannot be applied to non-pharmaceutical drugs or cosmetics for which the plaintiff applied for permission of manufacture, and therefore, Article 5 (1) 2 of the "Permission Guidelines" cannot be rejected on the grounds of Article 5 (1) 2 of the "Permission Guidelines", and the defendant's disposition cannot be rejected on the grounds of other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the "Act" and "Permission Guidelines", and the respective provisions of the "Permission Guidelines" are examined as to the application for permission of manufacture of non-pharmaceutical drugs or cosmetics, which were already made to a third party under the same name, and thus, the defendant's application for permission of manufacture cannot be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff's application for permission of manufacture does not constitute a false name or exaggerated name.

3. Thus, although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is not somewhat insufficient, the conclusion of the judgment below which judged the disposition of this case to be illegal is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)