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, a company importing and selling food, etc., imported and sold “A” (hereinafter “instant product”) from October 2013 to China.

On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the distribution deadline as one year (from October 10, 2015 to October 9, 2016) while importing the instant product 8,00 kg.

B. On April 17, 2017, a civil petition for the alteration of the distribution term of the instant product was received by telephone (illegal food reporting) (hereinafter “illegal food reporting”), and the civil petition was sent to the Macheon City on April 18, 2017.

D. On April 20, 2017, Seocheon-si received packing materials (No. B. 1-2) posted by a Stick stating “from the date of manufacture to the date of 26 months” on the packing materials marked by civil petitioners as “12 months from the date of manufacture” from the civil petitioners and sent a civil petition to the Defendant.

At that time, the defendant investigated the KGGB, a wholesale retailer who sold the product of this case, and confirmed that B and the KGGB purchased and sold the product of this case from the plaintiff, an importer.

C. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to suspend business operations for one month and to discard the pertinent product on the grounds that the Plaintiff, different from the fact that the Plaintiff reported the import of the instant product, changed the distribution period (which was extended from 12 months from the date of manufacture to 26 months from the date of manufacture).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1, 3, Eul 1, 2, and 5 as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the statutes on the basis of the disposition, the main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Management, which was presented by the Defendant under the statutes on the basis of the disposition of this case, was enacted on February 3, 2015 and enforced on February 4, 2016, and thus, it cannot be applied to the Plaintiff that imported the product of this case prior to that determination.