1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A is a trade name called “C”, and the Plaintiff B is a person who manufactures, imports, and sells non-pharmaceutical drugs, including business, under the trade name of “D”.

B. As a result of the shape test on each of the instant products listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant products”) on January 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) among the quasi-drugs listed in attached Table 4-6 of the Korean Pharmacopoeia (Notice of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety No. 2014-194, Dec. 5, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) among the non-pharmaceuticals listed in attached Table 4-6 of the Korean Pharmacopoeia (hereinafter “Korean Pharmacopoeia Claim”).

The former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 13598, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) on January 12, 2016:

(2) Pursuant to Articles 71(2) and 72(2), an order to suspend sales of each business product of this case, to recall, and to publish an order to disclose the fact of recall (hereinafter the above order to recall, and to publish the fact of recall shall be referred to as “instant disposition” in total.

(c) The Plaintiffs filed an objection against the Defendant. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiffs’ objection on January 22, 2016. 【Ground of Recognition】 Facts without any dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, and 4, and Eul’s 1 through 3 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Although the absence of the grounds for disposition in the case of each business product of this case does not prove that the harm to public health has occurred or is likely to occur due to the absence of the grounds for disposition, the defendant's disposition of this case ordering the plaintiffs to recall and recall each business product of this case is unlawful as the grounds for disposition do not exist. 2) The defendant's dual disposition of this case is unlawful as the defendant's dual disposition of this case against the plaintiff A on February 15, 2016 due to the same reasons as the grounds for disposition of this case. 15 days of import suspension of business, 15 days of manufacture suspension of the product of this case as stated in the attached Form