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 April 20, 2015, the Seoul Office of the Korea Agricultural Products Quality Management Service (Seoul Office) discovered the Plaintiff’s false indication of domestic beef in the display stand as a Chinese-do Chinese-do Chinese-do-do-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based

B. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 8,260,000 in lieu of seven days of business suspension pursuant to attached Table 3 of Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26822, Dec. 30, 2015) on the Plaintiff on the ground of violation of Article 31(2) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and Article 27(1)1 and Article 28(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was re-efluence that the Plaintiff was placed in the display team because there was no level in the domestic fluorial fluorial fluor that was kept in the display team from the control point on the date of the detection of the instant case. Since the employees of the said fluor was cut down on the preceding day, the Plaintiff attached a multi-level fluoral fluor in the remaining domestic fluoral fluor under the accurate knowledge of whether the fluor was the fluor at the time of the

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Since sanctions against a violation of an administrative statute are sanctions against a violation of an administrative statute, the objective fact that the violation of an administrative statute is committed to achieve the administrative purpose, it may be imposed even if the violator has no intention or negligence, barring any special circumstance, such as where it is impossible to cause the violator's failure to perform his/her duty, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 200