The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) issued a disposition to suspend business operations on the ground that the Plaintiff imported and sold the German diesel products (TE) from February 19, 2016 to March 18, 2016; and (b) issued a corrective order on the grounds that the Plaintiff committed the following acts: (c) one month and seven days of business suspension (from July 21, 2016 to August 26, 2016); (d) the destruction of the relevant products; and (e) the corrective order:

(2) The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) import and sale of the product manufactured by using the colors in this case, which did not have been recognized for a limited period of time; (b) import and sale of the product manufactured by using the colors in this case, which was manufactured using “blak cart not Ansibine” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant colors”); (c) import and sale of the product in this case, which was not the instant colors in which the standards and specifications for a limited period of time are not recognized; and (d) import and sale [based on recognition] import and sale of the product in the name of raw material, by indicating the “blak extraction color as its raw material” other than the instant colors in which the relevant product was actually used for the indication in Korean.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

① Although the product of this case is being distributed in a foreign country without any problem, it is believed that there is no simple component list provided by the overseas trading agency even though it did not disclose information on the component analysis in the manufacturing process.

In addition, more than 20 domestic parallel importers have already imported and sold the product of this case in Korea, and there was no system for the quarantine process of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in the process.

In addition, Potopy extraction color is not Antholy-siin color.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff cannot breach the Plaintiff’s duty to import and sell the product of this case, on which the name of the raw material is indicated as “sposium extraction color,” not in the color of this case.

(2)