1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Article 6(1)1 of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products (amended by Act No. 14207, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “Originating Origin Labeling Act”) provides that “No person shall make a false indication of origin or make an indication likely to cause confusion thereof,” and Article 6-2(1)1 of the Origin Labeling Act provides that “The competent authority may impose a penalty surcharge of not more than five times on a person who has violated Article 6(1) or (2) of the Origin Labeling Act at least twice a two-year period, on the ground that he/she has violated Article 6(2)1 of the Origin Labeling Act on the grounds that he/she has committed a violation at least twice.

In such cases, the number of violations of Article 6 (1) and the number of violations of paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be added up.

In accordance with the foregoing provision, the Plaintiff imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 145,930,350 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 1, 2015, the first violation Plaintiff, along with B, sold a domestic company produced in the area of Cheong-dong and water from September 1, 2015 to October 8, 2015, which was produced in the area of Cheong-dong and Cheong-dong, but sold only to Cheong-dong, etc., the Plaintiff placed a false advertisement on the said C and D website, stating that “this event, farm address: Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-do, G” and “Cheong-dong, Cheong-gun, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, G” on D advertising, immediately sent Cheong-si, which was harvested at 300 meters from Cheong-dong 300 meters from the farm.

By posting a false advertisement to the effect that ‘the apology produced by 2,424 farmers in total in the discharge of the Cheongong-gun', the Cheongong-gun made a false or misleading indication of origin that could cause confusion with Cheongong-gun.

2. From October 1, 2015 to January 28, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff was in violation of the second violation is zero percent.