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 is a Korean corporation located in Germany, and is a company that imports and sells medical devices, such as kidne stone, water-purification equipment, filtering (G), and blood circuit (H).

B. The Defendant determined that “an importer of a medical device should not provide economic benefits to medical personnel, founders of medical institutions, and employees of medical institutions (hereinafter “medical institutions, etc.”) for the purpose of facilitating the sale of the medical device, and that the Plaintiff provided the instant equipment, computers, monitors, and weight systems, etc. (hereinafter “the instant equipment”) to 28 medical institutions, etc. from December 1, 201 to August 30, 201, with the aim of facilitating the sale of the boom and blood circuits (hereinafter “the instant medical device”). On July 5, 2012, the Defendant suspended the Plaintiff’s disposal of blood items (the instant equipment) for one month pursuant to Articles 32 and 14 of the former Medical Devices Act (amended by Act No. 10564, Apr. 7, 2011; hereinafter “former Medical Devices”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Eul’s evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not send “prior notice and notice of holding a hearing” to the Plaintiff, and I, the presiding official of the hearing, did not explain to the Plaintiff that “the blood circuit should be included in the subject of the disposition.” As such, the instant disposition is unlawful in that the procedure is unlawful. 2) The part that applies mutatis mutandis Article 12(3) of the former Medical Devices Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) under Article 14(5) of the former Medical Devices Act violates the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation, the right to equality, and is unconstitutional that infringes on the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation, the right to equality, and the right to pursue happiness. Therefore, the instant disposition is also unlawful.

3. The case.