The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 7, 2019, the Defendant was delegated by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries with the authority to designate certifying institutions pursuant to Article 58(1) of the National Agricultural and Fishery Business Act and Article 7(4)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In accordance with Article 26 (1) of the Act on the Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fishing Business and the Management and Support of Organic Food, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as “environment-friendly Agriculture and Fishing Business Act”), an institution designated as a certification body, such as organic food, etc., succeeds to certification duties, such as organic food, etc., of a former certification body.

B. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained certification of organic agricultural products from the president of the Incorporated Association C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) on the following grounds:

Classification: The period of validity of organic agricultural products: The producers from August 18, 2017 to August 17, 2018: The location of the Plaintiff’s place of business and the growing area: Items with certification of 72,378 square meters in 12 lots, Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Yannam-gun: rice, glutinous rice, glu

C. On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the examination of certification of organic agricultural products with E (hereinafter “E”) on August 3, 2018 for the renewal of certification of organic agricultural products, and on August 6, 2018, the examiner affiliated with E collected rice plants from the Plaintiff’s agricultural product certification growing area (hereinafter “instant growing area”) located in the Plaintiff’s above organic agricultural products growing in the land located in Yanan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant rice plants”) and conducted an examination of remaining agricultural chemicals as samples of the pesticide, the Plaintiff’s remaining pesticide was found Cricya (Tricycylazle) 0.01mg/km, which is an organic synthetic pesticide.

(d)

On September 5, 2018, the Defendant notified E of the aforementioned results of the examination, and on September 6, 2018, notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of certification on the ground that the said results fall short of the certification standards under Article 24 (1) 2 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fishing Business Act.

E. Meanwhile, on August 26, 2018, the Plaintiff’s pesticide ingredients detected in the instant rice plants in E are adjacent thereto.