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

A. The Plaintiff is a pharmacist who establishes and operates a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) under the trade name “C” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B.

D, the spouse of the plaintiff, has worked as an employee at the pharmacy of this case.

B. D, around 14:30 on July 10, 2012, sold 2,50 won as an over-the-counter medicine (hereinafter “the instant medicine”) to male customers with no knowledge of the name of 40 households, which found the instant pharmacy, and whose names were unknown.

Article 44(1) and Article 24(4) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 11251, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”), Article 76(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 96 [Attached Table 8] of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 160, Sept. 26, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), the criteria for administrative disposition under Article 96 [Attached Table 8] of the Enforcement Rule of

Ⅱ Article 81 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Articles 33 and 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24479, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning the penalty surcharges under subparagraphs 11 and 13 (e) of the individual standards

C. On September 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,270,000 in lieu of the business suspension on the 11th day pursuant to the following applicable statutes (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that D without a pharmacist’s license sold the instant drug.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition on the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The instant disposition was taken by so-called “Pampas” as evidence of the film recording the process of selling the instant drug by Kameras, which intentionally led D without a pharmacist’s license to sell the instant drug, and constitutes an illegal crackdown by Momer. 2).