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 and E, the plaintiff's spouse, have worked as an employee in this case's pharmacy.

B. On January 13, 2014, a customer with no knowledge of the name of the pertinent pharmacy sought a call “market” around 14:54 on or around January 13, 2014. E, at the display stand of the instant pharmacy, shall take out the plate license, which is an over-the-counter medicine (hereinafter “the instant drug”), and put the instant drug on the sales stand. D calculated the sales proceeds of the instant drug at KRW 2,00,000, and then sent the instant drug to the said customer.

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 ten days of business suspension pursuant to the following applicable statutes (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that D, who is a pharmacy founder, sold the instant drug to the Plaintiff, as seen above, on the ground that D, who was disqualified as a pharmacist, sold the instant drug.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 7, the result of the CD verification by this court, 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 disposition of this case on the basis of screen pictures taken by Pampas without the plaintiff's consent, and the above.