판매중단 등 처분 무효확인 등
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The plaintiff is a company that imports and sells a cans presses-type product while engaging in the business of importing, distributing, and selling industrial and consumer tools.
Pursuant to Article 48 of the Act on Registration, Evaluation, etc. of Chemicals (hereinafter referred to as the "Chemical Registration Act") and Article 31 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant shall be authorized by the Minister of Environment to order necessary measures, such as recall, prohibition of sale, destruction, etc. of risk concern products based on Article 37 of the Chemical Registration Evaluation Act.
As a result of the investigation on whether the Ministry of Environment complies with the safety labelling standards for dangerous products, he/she confirmed that the “bench” was detected in excess of the standard value (30 mg/km) in the key products sold to the Home Pusser's government store, and notified the Defendant on January 22, 2018, and requested the Defendant to take necessary measures for the key products.
On January 29, 2018, the Defendant given the Plaintiff an opportunity to submit opinions with prior notice, and issued an order to suspend sales and to improve the sale of the pertinent product to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 36 and 37 of the former Chemicals Registration Act (amended by Act No. 15512, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same) on the grounds that the “bench” was detected in excess of the standard value (30 g/km) with respect to the pertinent product sold by the Plaintiff on February 14, 2018.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition") without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7 (including these numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate or not the main issue of the plaintiff's assertion falls under the "Doco-friendly paint" regulated by the Clean Air Conservation Act, and thus, the product does not fall under the "product of risk concern concern" under the former Chemicals Registration Standards (hereinafter referred to as the "Criteria in this case") according to delegation by the former Chemical Registration Evaluation Act
4. “Infection or chrops”;
A. The “object spawnching agents”.