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

A. From March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff operated a resting restaurant in the name of “C” on the 1st floor of Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, and on July 11:38, 2014, the Plaintiff was found to have four copies of the milk with the expiration of the distribution period (the expiration date of July 23:00, 201).

B. Accordingly, on August 13, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the penalty surcharge of KRW 3,000,000 in lieu of 15 days of business suspension by August 27, 2014, following the procedures, such as prior submission of opinions, etc.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on October 6, 2014.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant decided to pay the penalty surcharge to the Plaintiff by October 16, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was under custody to return it to the Seoul milk agency, which is the supplier, and only signed a written confirmation of bitco at the request of the controlling public official.

In addition, the amount of the above penalty surcharge is excessive in light of the fact that there is no supplying food that has passed one time while running business for more than two years, and the fact that there is no big problem when the air condition is stored in an open storage even after the expiration of the distribution period.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is supplied with milk by the Seoul Postal Agency, and the above agency returns the products whose distribution period has expired. However, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 7, it is recognized that the fact that the fact that the fact that the fact that the fact that the fact that the distribution period has expired in the above resting restaurant and cooling house was kept without any separate indication at the time of crackdown was signed by the plaintiff himself at the time of the violation, and that the written opinion of his own will be punished by a penalty surcharge is also presented.