1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an import declaration with the Defendant pursuant to Article 20 of the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control (hereinafter “Import Food Act”) and Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule of the Imported Food Act with respect to the products listed in the separate sheet No. 1 imported from China (hereinafter “instant freezing”).

B. The Defendant opened a Committee for Determination of Inspection of Imported Fishery Products (hereinafter referred to as the “Examination Determination Committee”) to determine whether the imported fishery products were imported in the instant freezing area (hereinafter referred to as the “Examination Determination Committee”), and the Prosecutor Decision Committee, upon conducting a test on the performance of the duties on May 28, 2018, decided that four of the six members, among the six members, failed to comply with the result of the determination, and decided again to hold the Inspection Decision Committee.

On May 29, 2018, the Prosecutor Determination Committee rendered a non-conformity decision by unanimous consent of all the members as a result of a re-inspection.

(hereinafter referred to as “The Judgment Committee on Inspection of May 28, 2018” is “the First Decision Committee” and “the Decision on Decision on Inspection of May 29, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as “the Second Decision on Decision on Inspection”).

On May 30, 2018, the Defendant rendered on May 30, 2018, an inappropriate disposition as to the instant freezing based on the Plaintiff’s appearance, color, and non-conformity of foreign goods on the ground of “the appearance, color, and color caused by inhuman injection.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed inasmuch as there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case since the freezing fallen of this case had already been returned to China, the exporting country.

The preceding disposition and subsequent disposition are continued to be a series of procedures in a phased manner.