업무정지등처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
B. Around September 2017, the Plaintiff’s National Assembly member criticized that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes grounds for revocation of designation as a certification body because the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a three-dimensional-out system. On October 12, 2017, the inspection of the state administration against Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which took place on October 12, 2017, there was criticism that the Plaintiff’s representative director and other retired public officials of the National Agricultural Product Quality
E. On October 20, 2017, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs revoked the instant corrective order against the Plaintiff and ordered the Plaintiff to report the result of the administrative disposition, on the grounds that the instant corrective order cannot be deemed to have been an administrative measure in conformity with the relevant statutes.
Facts of grounds for business suspension in this case on October 31, 2017: Non-Implementation of an investigation into the production process - Conduct of an investigation into the production process after issuance of a certificate of certification - Conduct of an investigation into the production process for less than the number of sample farming products for a group-certified case * Related legal basis and details of Articles 25 cases, such as B(C), 29 and 32 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act; Article 35 [Attachment 10] of the Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act
(i) In cases of failure to meet the standards for designation under Article 26 (6) of the Act, the facts constituting the grounds for the disposition of revocation of the designation of this case on November 1, 2017: The relevant violation of business suspension twice during the last three years - the violation falling under the disposition of business suspension occurs again after having been subject to the disposition of business suspension twice during the last three years (see November 9, 2016): * once administrative disposition on February 21, 2014; the second administrative disposition: the legal basis and details of the relevant provisions on February 11, 2016 - Article 29 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act and Article 35 [Attachment Table 10] of the Enforcement Rule of
1. General standards:
(b) Where a violation subject to a disposition of business suspension occurs again after having been subjected to a disposition of business suspension twice during the latest three years (the third party relationship system);
2. Individual standards:
(i) Where it has failed to meet the standards for designation under Article 26 (6) of the Act;
F. The Defendant issued the instant corrective order against the Plaintiff on October 31, 2017, as follows.