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 February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the Defendant on the name of the products imported from China, pursuant to Article 19 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, with respect to the Free Trade Zone (hereinafter “the instant freezing”). On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the Defendant on the name of the products imported from China, pursuant to Article 19 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

B. The Defendant: (a) the inspection of imported fishery products to determine whether the freezing machines of this case were imported; (b) the inspection of imported fishery products (C) on February 11, 2015, under Article 12(2) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act; and (c) the method of filing an import declaration of foods, etc. in attached Table 4.

2.(b)

In this context, “satisfy test” defined as “test to determine whether a product conforms to the standards determined by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety by comprehensively taking into account the product’s nature, condition, smell, smell, color, display, packing condition, close inspection history, etc.”

(1) The inspection of this case was conducted by the method of the inspection of this case, and the inspection of this case was found to be inappropriate on the ground of the "human injecting with ice on the boundary line of the inner and inner stuffs" (hereinafter "the inspection of this case").

[2] On February 12, 2015, the disposition of notifying the Plaintiff of the inappropriate on the ground of injecting the human body (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A. [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful and unjust for the following reasons.

1) The instant inspection conducted without being equipped with facilities, etc. for the inspection of imported food, etc. under Article 5-2 [Attachment 5] 7. of the Regulations on Inspection of Imported Food, etc. (amended by the Ministry of Food and Drug Notice No. 2014-23, Feb. 12, 2014) (amended by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety No. 2014-23, Feb. 12, 2014). The inspection conducted by an inspector who failed to meet