영업정지처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for seven days that the Plaintiff rendered on July 8, 2016 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 5, 199, the Plaintiff completed the registration of food manufacturing and processing business to the Defendant, and is engaged in the funeral manufacturing business, etc. at the 1196 Simpo-ro, Simpo-si (hereinafter “instant place of business”).
B. On May 18, 2016, the Daegu Local Food and Drug Safety Agency discovered the fact that the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant plant was stored in the molds 200 km (200 km 10 km ; hereinafter “instant product”) after the expiration of the period of distribution (as of May 9, 2016), and notified the Defendant of the following day.
C. On the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 42(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 55 [Attachment Table 16] subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1313, Aug. 4, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant issued a disposition of 15 days of business suspension (hereinafter the “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2016 pursuant to Article 75(1) of the same Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
On September 26, 2016, the Gyeongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal. On September 26, 2016, the 15th disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff was determined to be excessive and reduced by seven days of business suspension.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is merely neglected due to neglect of management while trying to dispose of the product of this case. The plaintiff stored the product of this case for the purpose of manufacturing food(s) or actually used food(s) for the purpose of manufacturing food(s).
And food according to the delegation of Article 42(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act.