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

The Plaintiff is an organization designated as a certification body that carries out certification work for anti-bioticd livestock products, pesticide-free agricultural products, etc. pursuant to Article 35 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Promotion and the Management and Support of Organic Food, Etc. Act (hereinafter “environment-friendly agriculture and fisheries Act”), and the Defendant is delegated by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs with the authority to cancel designation or suspend business pursuant to Article 58 (1) of the same Act and

Around December 1, 2017, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff and given an opportunity to present opinions. On January 18, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 29(1)6 and 7 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act and Article 35 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries and the Management of and Support for Organic Food, Etc. (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act”) for the following reasons: “six months (from January 24, 2018 to July 23, 2018)”; and the scope of business subject to suspension was “the receipt of applications for certification, renewal of the period of validity under Articles 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 41 of the Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act; and the receipt of applications for review and approval.”

Article 20(6) of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act, Article 11(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act, and Article 7(3) [Attachment Table 2] [Attachment Table 2] 1(c)(b)(3) of the Detailed Guidelines for Certification of Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the “Detailed Guidelines for Implementation”) did not investigate and analyze the livestock excreta of B, which is a self-applicant farm for new non-sea-free livestock products.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disposition 1 of this case”). According to Article 34(2) of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act, Article 40(1) [Attachment Table 11] 2(d) and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act, organic synthetic pesticides may not be detected in non-agricultural products, except that: