logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구합52450
업무정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a company that imports and sells two items of cosmetics (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant cosmetics”) and cosmetics (hereinafter referred to as “Slinari New”).

On August 17, 2016, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Plaintiff, on the second package of the cosmetic, stated all ingredients used in the manufacture of the cosmetic and sold the cosmetic by stating “fluoroper” which was not used as the cosmetic ingredients.

On January 10, 2017, the Defendant: Article 13(1)4 of the Cosmetics Act; Article 22 [Attachment Table 5] 2(g) and Article 29(1) [Attachment Table 7] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1357, Jan. 12, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply);

2. In applying subparagraph 2 (m) of the individual criteria, the instant disposition of the suspension of sale of the cosmetic was taken two months (from January 31, 2017 to March 30, 2017) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) The Defendant issued the instant disposition by misunderstanding the facts by misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s factual basis by reporting that the Plaintiff’s member with malicious purpose to attract the Plaintiff was removed and sold the product’s ingredients on the instant cosmetics with a modified CD attached thereto, and that the Plaintiff’s member with malicious purpose to attract the Plaintiff was removed.

The "floropolyler" in the abuse of discretionary power is a combination element that ings the active substance into the skin, and the plaintiff does not indicate the importance of cosmetics differently from the fact, and the plaintiff did not have any intention to deceive consumers.

Regardless of the plaintiff's intention, the manufacturer made a mistake in the indication of packing, and the plaintiff imported it and used it without finding any wrong indication, so it is regardless of the intention of "the reduction or exemption of the Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act".

arrow