The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the fact that the seed industry has a seed certification system and quality labelling system in order to improve productivity of agriculture and forestry industry through the distribution and distribution of high-quality seeds in the seed industry and protect related consumers, the purpose of the seed industry Act, the legislative purpose of the seed industry Act, and the circumstances in which the act of packaging and selling seeds again is stipulated as seed business, where a business of selling seeds to many persons via the Internet through the process of removing or opening a package of the supplied seeds and then distributing them again, is engaged in the business of selling seeds to a large number of persons through the Internet, even if the method of packaging is not standardized and has changed as ordered, it constitutes a seed business under Article 2 subparagraph 8 of

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, carried on a non-registered seed business by engaging in the business of packaging and selling a large number of seeds to unspecified persons on the Internet without registering under the Seed Industry Act.

The decision was determined.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the act of repackaging and selling the seeds under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Seed Industry Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.