1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was designated as “ drinking water quality inspection institution” by the Defendant.

B. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension three months (from September 18, 2017 to December 17, 2017) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, without directly collecting samples, inspected 28 samples provided by the food processing company, and issued the test report.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that 5,00 samples were collected in total. Among them, if not directly collected, it is limited to 28 items provided for the manufacturing and processing of food, which is due to the site of the Act and subordinate statutes examining only the Food Sanitation Act, and the defendant's failure to take a reduced disposition or penalty surcharge is against the principle of balancing profits.

In addition, it is against the principle of equality that a disposition of suspension of business was taken only against the plaintiff even though another institution imposed a penalty surcharge.

(b) Entry in the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes;

C. (1) Determination (1) Article 43(6)8 of the Management of Drinking Water Act and attached Table 8-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that “the collection of samples and the inspection thereof shall be conducted directly by the technical personnel of the inspection institution” shall be conducted. According to Article 43(9) of the same Act and Article 39(9) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where the above matters to be observed are violated, the first violation shall be ordered to suspend the business for three months.

On the other hand, whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms or not, shall objectively examine the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances, and thereby, the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantage that