Attorney Kim Do-ll et al.

The title of the litigation performer shall be the same.

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

A. On November 8, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the import and sale business of food, etc. to the Defendant, and is a company engaged in the export and import business of agricultural and fishery products.

B. On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration on July 27, 2007 with the Busan Sea Products Quality Inspection Support Center delegated by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries on July 31, 2007, to import freezing 1,450 gg (White bridge bridges, self-satiss, packings, packings, hereinafter the instant new bats).

C. However, as a result of a close inspection of the instant New Organisms by the National Fishery Products Quality Inspection Agency, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on August 7, 2007 the return of the instant New Organisms on August 27, 2007 and returned the entire amount of the instant New Organisms to Thailand on September 3, 2008.

D. On December 17, 2007, the Defendant filed a false report with the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff did not state the above content on the “import declaration of food, etc. although Malacine, which is a hazardous chemical prohibited from using the instant new milk, although the Plaintiff filed an import declaration of the instant new milk; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff returned the entire amount of the instant new milk to the Plaintiff on the ground that it did not state such content on the “import declaration of food, etc.” (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), Articles 16(1) and 58(1)1 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 435 of Jan. 21, 2008); (c) Article 53 [Attachment Table 15] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 1100, Jan. 21, 2008).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Although the Plaintiff was not imported since it returned all of the customs clearance procedures for the instant New Organisms, the Defendant was deemed to have imported, and the instant disposition was taken.

(2) The Plaintiff believed that there was no problem at all from the Korea Fisheries Agency of Thailand, the exporting country of the instant new species, and that Malargin was unexploited and imported. Thus, there was no intention, and immediately returned the entire quantity of the instant disposition after passing a failure inspection during the domestic customs clearance procedure, and when the instant disposition is suspended, the Plaintiff Company, the zero business entity, is in danger of insolvency. In light of the above, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the first assertion, the disposition of this case was as seen earlier that the Plaintiff reported food using hazardous chemicals prohibited from being used for food differently from the fact while filing an import declaration. This is not related to the existence of the completion of import, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part of the other premise is without merit.

(2) As to the second argument

The sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative laws are sanctions imposed on the objective facts of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as the failure to perform the duty of the violator, barring any justifiable reason, it may be imposed even if there is no intention or negligence on the violator. Although the plaintiff believed that the sanitary certificate and notification of the exporting country were not attributable to the Busan City Health and Environment Research Institute, Korea Food Research Institute, Korea Food Research Institute, and Korea Research and Technology Institute, etc., it is sufficiently possible for an inspection to find out the detection of Malaysia (No. 9 and No. 10). The plaintiff specializing in importing food products, who had paid more attention or prevented such outcome if he conducted an inspection in advance. The disposition of this case is a mitigated of 1/2 from the original administrative disposition criteria, taking into account the circumstances that the plaintiff already returned the new food of this case, and the new food of this case is no more than 1,530 g., the new food of this case, which can be viewed as an unlawful violation of Article 320 of the Food Sanitation Control Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.