1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff is running a food subdivision business with a trade name called “C” (hereinafter “instant enterprise”) in Gyeonggi-si B and 2 Dong (hereinafter “instant enterprise”).

B. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to suspend business operations for the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015, pursuant to Articles 75 and 10(2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of altering the mark of 1,370 U.S. circulation term differently from the fact, by September 30, 2017.

C. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission changed the business suspension period of one month from March 23, 2016 to 15 days of business suspension, and the Defendant changed the above disposition against the Plaintiff on April 6, 2016 to 15 days of business suspension and the disposal of the relevant product.

(hereinafter the revised contents are as follows. 【Disposition in this case’s Disposition of December 3, 2015 / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is limited to the Plaintiff’s packing of the product labelling paper, which was pre-printed until September 30, 2015, which was scheduled to be used after the drilling, by inserting the product labelling paper into the plastic sealing paper. The product of this case was pre-distribution and thus cannot be viewed as an indication under the Food Sanitation Act because it was pre-distribution, and it was not used for business, such as importing, displaying, and transporting the product at the workplace, and the Plaintiff did not use it for sale at the workplace. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful because the Plaintiff’s deviation from discretion, and the abuse Plaintiff’s abuse of discretion, which caused a enormous impediment to the livelihood of the employees of the instant business, due to the disposition of 15 days of business suspension.