1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The details and process of the disposition and the Plaintiff A is a pharmacist who establishes and operates a “D pharmacy” (hereinafter “D pharmacy”) in the Gangseo-gu Busan on July 8, 2011.

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff B established the Seo-gu building in Busan and the F Pharmacy in the name of Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”).

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs were subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment against the suspected violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act as follows by the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office.

1) A suspect A is a pharmacist and is operating a D pharmacy. A pharmacist is entitled to establish only one pharmacy. Nevertheless, the suspect leased B’s pharmaceutical license with a pharmacist’s license on January 5, 2015 and established the instant pharmacy. Accordingly, the suspect B established two pharmacies.

No pharmacist shall lend his/her pharmacist's license to another person.

Nevertheless, on January 5, 2015, the suspect registered the establishment of the instant pharmacy in the name of the suspect in the Busan Seo-gu Office and established the instant pharmacy.

The suspect did not operate a pharmacy established in his own name and lent a pharmacist's license so that A may operate a pharmacy.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the qualification of a pharmacist pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 50 [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 365, Nov. 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “A, while operating a pharmacy under his/her own name, leased a pharmacist’s license to enable the Plaintiff to operate the pharmacy without operating the pharmacy,” and on the same day, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend the qualification for 12 months against the Plaintiff on the ground that “B leased a pharmacist’s license to the Plaintiff A to operate the pharmacy on January 5, 2015, without operating the pharmacy under his/her own name,” and Article 6(3) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 50 [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) recognition.