(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.9.17. 선고 2015구합10693 판결

The defendant's disposition of suspension of indication against the plaintiff on April 8, 2015 and suspension of sales for three months shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was certified as Korean Industrial Standards (KS) with respect to the “actualing materials for construction” (standard number: KSF 4910) produced by the Plaintiff from the Korean Standard Association as a company engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling containers for construction at the location of its place of business.

B. Based on Article 20 of the Industrial Standardization Act, the Defendant confirmed that the result of the Plaintiff’s investigation of the market products for the practical use of construction products manufactured and sold (hereinafter “this case’s investigation result”), and that the actual use of construction products for which the Plaintiff manufactured and sold falls short of the quality standards stipulated in the Korean Industrial Standards (the volume ratio is less than 10%).

C. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of indication for three months and three months of suspension of sales (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Industrial Standardization Act (hereinafter “Industrial Standardization Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In light of the purport of the provisions of the Industrial Standardization Act and the characteristics of each product, the Defendant did not establish the criteria for the examination of certification that classify the products into light of the Korean Industrial Standards as light defects, serious defects, and fatal defects even though it has an obligation to pre-determined the criteria for the examination of certification, and without establishing such criteria, concluded that the Plaintiff’s practice for construction falls short of the quality standards, and that the violation is a serious defect, and then the Defendant’s each disposition of this case was unlawful.

2) There are many circumstances under which the Defendant could not trust the outcome of the instant investigation, such as the process of purchasing a product subject to investigation on the market, and each of the instant dispositions based on the findings of the instant investigation is unlawful.

3) Under the Korean Industrial Standards, the type of de factoing for construction is divided into G-type and F-type. Among de factoing materials for construction sold by the Plaintiff, the remainder of products except for F-type products and products in transparent color for G-type products is not defective. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions against the entire de factoing materials for construction manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff. Each of the instant dispositions was unlawful.

4) Since each of the dispositions in this case has great impact on the Plaintiff compared to the public interest objectives to be achieved by the Defendant, each of the dispositions in this case is in violation of the law of deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 17(1) of the Industrial Standardization Act provides that "a certification institution shall conduct an examination (hereinafter referred to as "examination for certification") to determine whether the relevant product or service satisfies the Korean Industrial Standards and the standards for examination for certification prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (hereinafter referred to as "standards for examination for certification"). Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Standardization provides that "the standards for examination for certification under Article 17(1) of the Act are as specified in attached Table 8." Article 2(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Standardization [Attachment 8] of the Industrial Standardization Act provides that "the standards for examination for certification for each Korean Industrial Standards (KS)" shall be 1) of the standards for examination for product testing, 2) classification of defects (a) according to the results of product testing, 3) method of indicating product certification, 4) classification of products (a) method of product certification, and 4) standards for examination for each Korean Industrial Standards, including the Korean Industrial Standards.

Accordingly, the Defendant enacted the "Criteria for the Examination of Certification of KS Mark 4910" for the purpose of construction (KSF 4910), and the above criteria for the Examination are H. Paragraph 10 of the product classification according to the result of the product examination provides that the product's failure to meet the criteria for non-performance loss of the construction is a serious defect in the product. In addition, maintaining the level above a certain level of level after construction is the basic and important performance of de-construction, which is the basic and important performance of de-buildinging for construction (KSF 4910). It does not seem to be unreasonable in light of the purpose of the delegation provision of the Industrial Standardization Act and the characteristics of each product.

Accordingly, the defendant's loss ratio of the de factoing materials for construction that the plaintiff manufactured and sold exceeds 10% of the Korean Industrial Standards, which is the quality standard for construction (KSF 4910) and constitutes a serious defect in the product in accordance with the "Standards for the Examination for Certification of KS Marks", and the defendant's each disposition of this case is in accordance with Article 28 and [Attachment Table 1-2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Standardization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26021, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Standardization Act") as a result of the survey of goods on the market in accordance with the criteria for the disposition of "where the loss ratio of the de factoing materials for construction that the plaintiff manufactured and sold constitutes a serious defect (quality or performance defect, etc.) stipulated in the criteria for the Examination under Article 17 (1) of the Act.

2) Furthermore, on July 2, 2014, when a civil petition was filed to the effect that the Plaintiff’s de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto is being distributed, the Defendant requested the Korea Testing and Research Institute to conduct a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

3) Meanwhile, the plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions in this case against the whole of the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto, regardless of the type of de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

4) Finally, with respect to whether each disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of proportionality or abuse of discretionary power, (1) the Plaintiff’s act of failing to comply with the standard of examination for certification is a serious violation of the standard of examination for certification, and (2) the standard of examination for certification for actual use for construction (KSF 4910) provides that partial loss of the actual use for construction (KSF 4910) is an excessive defect, and (3) it is difficult to see that each disposition of this case is unfair because the Plaintiff’s first disposition of this case, which is not subject to the disposition of this case, is not subject to the disposition of this case to prevent the Plaintiff from manufacturing and selling products for that period, but it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s initial disposition of this case, which is not subject to the disposition of this case, is an abuse of discretionary power after considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s initial disposition of this case, which is not subject to the disposition of this case, is an abuse of discretionary power, and thus, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s first disposition of this case’s defect.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.