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 pharmacist who establishes and operates a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) under the trade name “C pharmacy” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si B.

D has worked as an employee at the instant pharmacy.

B. D around January 14, 2014, around 16:42, sold to customers, whose name the instant pharmacy was sought, and whose name could not be known, a sales slip (hereinafter “instant medicine”) and an over-the-counter call (hereinafter “over-the-counter drug”) to KRW 3,000.

Article 44(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act prohibiting the sale of medicines without qualification under applicable statutes; Article 76(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 283, Jan. 5, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”) / [Attachment 3] Article 81 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 33 and 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25605, Sep. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act”).

C. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 5,700,000 in lieu of 10 days of business suspension pursuant to the following applicable statutes (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, a pharmacy founder, as well as D’s act of selling the instant drugs, upon the Plaintiff, who was not a pharmacist.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is unlawful and should be revoked as follows.

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of the screen pictures taken by Pampas without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the said screen pictures were unlawful by infringing upon the portrait right and the freedom of privacy, and did not have taken the place where the Plaintiff, a pharmacist, was located. 2) The Plaintiff’s act of selling the instant medicines at the dispensary of the instant pharmacy.