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 an enterprise that runs livestock products sales business (sales business) on the first floor and the first floor of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On February 3, 2016, the Seoul Regional Food and Drug Administration visited the Plaintiff’s place of business and conducted control, and notified the Defendant, who is the competent authority, of the result thereof.

C. On April 4, 2016, according to the above notification, the Defendant: (a) violated the labelling standard of livestock products (the purpose of storage of non-labeled products for sale; hereinafter “the instant separate grounds”); (b) violated the prohibition of false labelling, etc. (the HCC HAP Azard Anlyscis Citus, as the weak. without obtaining certification; hereinafter “the ground for the first disposition in this case”); (c) violated the prohibition of sale, etc. (the purpose of storage of finished products for sale; hereinafter “the ground for the second disposition in this case”); and (d) disposed of the relevant products pursuant to Article 27 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, etc. 48 days (from April 18, 2016 to June 4, 2016) and disposed of the relevant products.

(hereinafter the above disposition of business suspension is referred to as the “prior disposition of this case”).

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant preceding disposition, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant preceding disposition by this Court 2016Guhap60126, and this court is recognized as the grounds for the instant preceding disposition on November 10, 2016, but does not recognize the separate grounds for the instant separate disposition, and Article 41 [Attachment Table 11] of the Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act

1. General standards:

According to Paragraph (1), the period of business suspension that is available to the plaintiff is 37 days only, and thus, the prior disposition of this case ordering 48 days of business suspension was abused or abused discretion, and as long as the prior disposition of this case constitutes a discretionary act, the court can order cancellation, and only the exceeding part of the reasonable period of business suspension cannot be revoked, considering the reasonable period of business suspension

"The preceding disposition of this case" is a prior disposition of this case.