1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2007, the Plaintiff was designated as a testing and inspection institution in the field of food by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.

B. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the designation of a testing and inspection agency for food, etc. in accordance with the following grounds for disposition and relevant statutes:

(2) Article 27 subparag. 2 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 10(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food and Drug Act (hereinafter “Food and Drug Inspection Act”) provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has issued a written result of inspection differently from the fact, such as the issuance of a written result of inspection as if the body was tested by mixing the body and the body was individually tested (hereinafter “instant disposition”), despite the fact that the result of the examination is written.

(a) In cases of a testing and inspection agency, a disposition under Article 2 (2) (the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As seen below, the part which was convicted of the Plaintiff among the acts subject to the instant administrative disposition, as seen in the entirety of seven prosecutors. It is true that the Plaintiff prepared a test report as if he/she tested five autopsys, even if five autopsys were mixed. However, the Plaintiff’s act was before being amended by Act No. 11985, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same is applicable.

Article 27 subparagraph 2 of the same Article does not apply to cases of issuing a false report on food sanitary inspections, or to cases of issuing a false report on inspection under Article 10 (1) 2 of the Act on Testing, Inspection, etc. in the Food and Drug Industry.

(2).