1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending business against the Plaintiff on July 29, 2015 is revoked for three months.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff, a veterinarian, was a person operating a “C veterinary hospital” as referred to in the “C veterinary hospital” in the Seoyang-si B and 208 Goyang-si, Manyang-si, and employed D without a veterinarian’s license.

B. On April 25, 2015, at around 17:00, the Plaintiff provided medical treatment to 1 marith of the cryposis that E protects from the above veterinary hospital, and the Plaintiff asserted that D is KC, which is a hC for the prevention of the cryposis. However, according to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 9, it is recognized that the cryposis vaccination is a sypological vaccination.

D has been implemented by giving direction to put an vaccination for disease prevention and white (dual).

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant medication”) C.

On July 23, 2015, 2015, the Kibu District Court issued a fine of KRW 1 million as a violation of the Veterinarians Act on the ground that D performed the above medication without a veterinarian's license, and the above summary order became final and conclusive.

(Court 2015 Highest 4396) d.

On July 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months pursuant to Article 33 subparagraph 2 of the Veterinarians Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had an unqualified person perform the pertinent medication.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the said administrative appeals commission dismissed the claim on November 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 9, Eul's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6394 Decided January 15, 2009) that held that the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) injecting a microchips does not constitute a medical treatment as prescribed by the Veterinarians, the same risk is rather the same and the danger is rather less.