1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The background of the disposition and the grounds for this part of the relevant statutes are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 2, 3, and 11), and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition does not exist on the grounds that the absence of the grounds for the instant disposition is without merit. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful. Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s order of confirmation and investigation, the Plaintiff’s duty is to collect the relevant product samples to test whether the raw materials of the product (hereinafter “actual raw materials”) are the same as the raw materials submitted and stated at the time of the Plaintiff’s report of self-regulatory safety confirmation (hereinafter “reported raw materials”), and to request the Safety Service to take measures according to the result of the test and report the result of the test to the Defendant.

In addition, the method of comparing the documents, etc. submitted at the instant survey site by the Jeong Steel is not an appropriate method of investigation because reliability is low compared with the method of requesting the Safety Authority to conduct the same test.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff neglected to perform its duties unless the Plaintiff collected the pertinent product at the site of the instant investigation and requested the Safety Service to conduct an examination.

B) The Plaintiff did not request the Hoan Steel to submit the smuggling of the pertinent product. Therefore, there is no fact that the Plaintiff voluntarily determined that the actual raw materials and the reported raw materials are the same on the grounds that the Plaintiff demanded the submission of the smuggling or that the submission of the smuggling was made. (C) The Plaintiff prepared the “report on the result of confirmation of the single-speak-type steel plate” and stated the “the additional report to be made according to the result of the sample collection sent to the Safety Certification Center” along with the present status of sample collection, and the actual raw materials and the reported raw materials are the same.