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

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in functional health functional foods, pharmaceutical wholesale and retail business, import and export business, etc., and is a domestic corporation of Rainbow & Nty Pd. Lt. (hereinafter “head office of head office”).

B. The Plaintiff imported Memera-3 200 CAP and Memera-3 110 CAP (hereinafter collectively referred to as “influent product”) from the head office of Australia, and sold it to the Seoul Customs office on November 22, 2015 and March 8, 2016, after filing an import declaration thereon, and until August 8, 2016.

C. On July 21, 2016, the Seoul Customs notified the Minister of Food and Drug Safety of the result of analyzing the product at issue, that the raw materials were falsely labeled as tobacco oil, and on August 5, 2016, the Minister of Food and Drug Safety notified the Defendant of the above fact and requested the Plaintiff to take measures in accordance with the Plaintiff’s investigation and related statutes.

On August 25, 2016, when the Plaintiff filed an import declaration of the product at issue, the Defendant filed a false declaration (hereinafter referred to as “finite oil”) differently from the fact, and filed a false declaration (hereinafter referred to as “finite oil”) of the name of the raw material of the product at issue as well as a false declaration [finite oil] on the ground that the name of the raw material was falsely labeled [finite oil] differently from the fact, and sold the product at issue, and requested the Plaintiff to submit opinions in accordance with Article 20(2) of the Special Act on Imported Safety Control and Article 18 of the Health Functional Foods Act.

E. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a false report or false report on the fish species of the product at issue with the Defendant on September 8, 2016, taking into account that the delivery of the modified information on the manufacture was a simple fault due to the delay in the delivery of the changed information on the manufacture, the suspension of business is substituted by a penalty surcharge, and the converted amount of the penalty surcharge is excessive compared to the Plaintiff’s business size and financial status, and accordingly, requested that the amount of the converted amount be reduced drastically, and submitted the sales data in 2

F. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 1, 2016 and suspended its business in accordance with the same reason and the relevant statutes.