1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this court while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents already asserted in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court, and the fact-finding results in this court's fact-finding on the Minister of Food and Drug Safety.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the allegations made by the plaintiff, which has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that this court has repeatedly emphasized

A. As to the assertion that there was no component inspection standard, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that there was a special reason for not being able to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting the duty, on the ground that there was no component inspection standard for DBP on March 23, 2013 at the time of import of the instant alcoholic beverages, and there was no special reason for not being able to charge the Plaintiff’s breach of duty.

However, in light of the overall purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 22, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety recognizes that from June 2, 2011, the Korea Food and Drug Safety had already conducted the DBP component test for "food" in accordance with the "permissible Standards" established by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, and in this context, "food" includes "food beverages" (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Food Sanitation Act), and the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted

B. As to the assertion that the result of sample inspection by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety was believed, the Plaintiff’s importation of the instant alcoholic beverages into the Republic of Korea is subject to sample inspection on October 22, 2010 and April 3, 2012.