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 pharmacist who establishes and operates a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) under the trade name “C pharmacy” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

Plaintiff

D, a spouse, has served as an employee in the instant pharmacy.

B. D on January 18, 2014, around 17:14, sales of 4,500 won in general-use drugs, to customers with no knowledge of the name of the pharmacy in this case, and with no knowledge of the name of the drug in this case, D sold to 4,500 won in general-use drugs.

Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act prohibiting the sale of medicines without qualification under applicable statutes; Article 76(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 283, Jan. 5, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”) / [Attachment 3] Article 81 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 33 and 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25605, Sep. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”).

C. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant, a pharmacy founder, issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 5,700,000 in lieu of ten days of business suspension pursuant to the following applicable statutes (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful and should be revoked as follows.

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of the screen pictures taken by Pampas without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the said screen pictures were unlawful by infringing upon the portrait right and the freedom of privacy, etc., and did not intentionally photograph only D (employee) and did not photograph a subsequent dispensary. 2) The Plaintiff is likely to have an adverse effect on employees in advance.