1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff imported or sold fishery products, and filed an import declaration on June 2012, on the imported or sold goods of freezing, and was subject to a disposition of imposition of penalty surcharge on the grounds that harmful substances were detected.

(1)(2).

After that, on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff imported 5,940km from the Indonesian exporters (hereinafter the imported goods of this case) and filed an import declaration, and the hazardous substances nitroum was detected.

(2) the second violation).

Accordingly, on November 17, 2014, pursuant to Articles 75 and 19(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 12390, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same), and Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1090, Aug. 18, 2014; hereinafter the same), the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 149,00,000 in lieu of the business suspension for three months (hereinafter the instant disposition) to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff returned all of the imported goods of this case to Indonesia on August 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 19(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act provides that the obligation to report is imposed on a food importer, and Article 75(1) of the same Act provides that an administrative disposition may be taken in cases of a violation of such obligation. Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1090, Aug. 18, 2014) provides for the criteria for administrative disposition against “where an import declaration of food, etc. using toxic chemicals prohibited from using for food has been filed.” This is unlawful as it is not delegated by the Food Sanitation Act, inasmuch as the Plaintiff imports food, etc. from the same exporter in March 2014 and August 2014.