1. On January 4, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of suspension of inspection business, which was rendered to the Plaintiff, is revoked for 15 days.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was designated by the Defendant as a safety inspection institution prescribed in Article 64 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act (the scope of business: analysis of harmful substances and harmful substances items: agricultural products residues).

B. On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) requested an inspection of pesticide residues 320 species to be carried out for export from the mine water of the agricultural partnership; and (b) notified the results of the analysis on January 27, 2016; and (c) details of the notification are as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Notice of Results of the Analysis of this case"). Opinions on the review of the permissible level (mg/km) (mg/km) of detection of detected components of the items in the analysis item are inappropriate to 0.0 U.S. Carbendazim 0.34 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.032 0.03.0

C. On July 26, 2016, as a result of the review of the notice of the result of the analysis of this case, the Defendant discovered the fact that the notice of the result of the analysis is in conformity with all the permissible standards of domestic and importing countries (it is necessary to compare and determine the outcome of the analysis by seeking a number of pages less than the permissible standard values in the Republic of Korea 1.0g/km, Japan 0.03g/km, and the experiment).

On January 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of 15 days of suspension of inspection pursuant to Article 65(1)4 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, Article 12 and Article 13 of the Rules on the Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the Safety Inspection of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Rules on the Safety Inspection of Agricultural and Fishery Products”) and Article 12 and Article 13 [Attachment Table 3] 2(h)5 of the Rules on the Safety Inspection of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1, 6 to 8 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply);

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition 1 does not exist remaining agrochemicals from the general public.