1. On February 18, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,200,000 on the Plaintiff in lieu of seven days of business suspension.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in other food sales business under the trade name, "Cat" (hereinafter referred to as the "instant business establishment") in the entire 1st floor of Ilyang-si, Mangdong-gu, Mangdong-gu and D (D).

B. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant received a civil petition from Nonparty D, who filed a civil petition, for which the distribution period of the instant business establishment had elapsed (the presses sponis spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spons

C. On February 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 11,200,000 in lieu of the seven days of business suspension pursuant to Articles 44 and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act and Articles 53, 54, and 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the grounds that the Defendant displayed and sold products, the distribution period of which has expired, to the Plaintiff following the hearing procedure (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not sell to the non-party D, who filed a civil petition with the defendant, the expiration of the distribution period.

D) Although the business of this case purchased a presses spoppy spoppy spoppy in the instant business, products for which the distribution period has not elapsed, and products for which the distribution period of photographs submitted by D upon filing a civil petition with the Defendant do not have been sold at the instant business establishment.

Even around July 3, 2012, Nonparty D demanded money from the instant establishment by asserting that it purchased a transitional product at the expiration of the distribution period, under the same method, even around July 3, 2012.

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. We examine whether the instant establishment had been displayed and sold with the expiration of the distribution period.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the non-party D purchased the SP 2 SP sP spons on January 11, 2014, and thereafter D shall be the defendant around January 15, 2014.