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 operating import-sale business of imported food, etc., and the Plaintiff imported “B” (B; hereinafter the instant product) from Indonesia located and completed the import declaration on October 12, 2017 to the Defendant.

B. On April 5, 2018, the Defendant collected part of the instant product from the Plaintiff and inspected it. As a result, the Defendant detected 0.21mg/km of the remaining remaining quantity of the instant product (hereinafter the instant pesticide) from the instant product.

C. On May 16, 2018, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act; (b) Article 29 of the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control; and Article 46(13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant pesticide was detected in the instant product; (c) rendered a disposition of suspending business for 15 days and ordering the destruction of the relevant product (the instant disposition of suspending business)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant pesticide is a pesticide that is not clearly defined as prohibited under the domestic laws and regulations, such as the Food Industry Code, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the ground that the instant pesticide was detected in Taiwan around the beginning of April 2018. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was conducted in a state where the grounds for the instant disposition were insufficient. 2) The Plaintiff, in violation of the principle of trust protection, imported the instant product from around 2012 to April 16, 2018, and thereafter, the Defendant permitted the remaining pesticide inspection of 287 items.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground that the pesticide was detected in the product of this case is in violation of the principle of trust protection.

3. The product of this case, which is abused from discretionary power, is imported through the defendant's inspection for about six years.