1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 89 persons, including the Plaintiffs, have entered into an intermediate wholesaler trade agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that was designated as an agricultural products wholesale market corporation in the above wholesale market after obtaining permission from the Defendant, who is the founder of the Incheon Metropolitan City C Wholesale Market (hereinafter “instant wholesale market”), and operated the intermediate wholesaler business by making the kind of fruits or vegetables as trading items.

Of them, Plaintiff A is the head of the E Association, who is the representative of a group of intermediate wholesalers, and Plaintiff B is the “head of the F Association” who is the representative of a group of intermediate wholesalers in the Republic of Korea.

B. On November 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a warning by applying Articles 74(1) and 82(5)8 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution and Price Stabilization Act”) and Article 56 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the said 89 intermediary wholesalers, including the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant intermediary wholesalers”), either intentionally or collectively, failed to pay the outstanding amount for the purchase of agricultural products and violated the normal trade order in the wholesale market.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 54, Gap evidence 87, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The intermediate wholesalers of this case, where there is no ground for disposition No. 1 of the plaintiffs' assertion, did not sell all agricultural products by January 12, 2015, the closing date, or did not pay the full amount of the successful bid price because they failed to receive credit sales. Of them, in the case of plaintiffs B, the plaintiffs paid the full amount of the successful bid price of their agricultural products by the closing date. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the dispositions of this case, which were otherwise made, are unlawful, but in light of the following facts, G agricultural products.