1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and sells the water supply and drainage pipes located in the PVC, and obtained certification of suitability of the Korean Industrial Standards (KS) with respect to the items listed in the [Attachment] on April 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant products”) from the head of the Korean Association under the Defendant’s control.

B. On May 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered a judgment of failure on the ground that: (a) on the Plaintiff’s factory; and (b) on April 27, 2019, from among the products of this case, the e-mail blade (hereinafter “instant samples”) produced on April 27, 2019 were voluntarily extracted as samples and requested DNA (D; hereinafter “D”); and (c) on July 9, 2019, the Defendant rendered a judgment of failure on the grounds that the e-mail test for the samples of this case (hereinafter “the instant test”) was conducted on the following grounds: (a) at least two of the five test samples fell under the destruction of at least 4-10 meters; and (b) the Defendant sent it to the Defendant.

C. On November 11, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of marking and selling the instant products for 1.5 months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff based on Article 21 of the Industrial Standardization Act, Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1-2, on the ground that “the instant product has a heavy defect according to the result of the instant examination.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5 evidence (including evidence number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) It cannot be readily concluded that the non-existence of the grounds for disposition in this case’s test was carried out accurately in accordance with the Korean Industrial Standards and the individual test method according to the examination criteria. Furthermore, the Plaintiff received a full pass decision in relation to the licensed certification authority including D and other internal shock test conducted by the Plaintiff before and after the instant test. In particular, the pass decision was also made in relation to the quality test for the product produced during the unit time, such as the samples of this case’s test, and the E-institution, a licensed certification authority different from D, at the time of the instant test