Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration (Law Firm, Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant)

April 22, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap47117 decided Oct. 10, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. On January 9, 2007, the order of the defendant against the plaintiff on January 9, 2007 to revoke the permission for items and to recover the products shall be suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

1. Purport of claim

On January 9, 2007, the defendant revoked all the product revocation disposition against the plaintiff on January 9, 2007 and the recovery order against the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court should explain this case is that "A09P201" is "A09" as "A09 P209" for samples No. 4 of the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A09 P201" for "A0" for "A0" for "A0 P209" for "the 8th page "8" for "the 10th page "the 3rd part of the 11st hand, without any difference," "the internal standard material" for "the 3 and 7th part of the 12th part "the internal standard material" for only the completion of the examination" for "B" for the first instance part of the 12th part "the reasons other than each other are the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance" for "the completion of the examination". Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revocation of permission for items of this case and suspension of suspension of collection order;

According to the record of this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent damage that can be caused to the plaintiff due to the cancellation of the permission of this case and the suspension of the suspension of the suspension of the permission of this case's item collection order, and there is no other data to recognize that the suspension of the permission of this case's item is likely to seriously affect public welfare. Thus, the effect of the cancellation of permission

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by the court below to order the revocation of the permission of item and the suspension of the collection order.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)