1. 15 days (period: from June 1, 2017 to June 15, 2017) of business suspension imposed against the Plaintiff on May 22, 2017 by the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in food import business at 18-11, an agro-industrial complex-based, Ansan-si, An agro-industrial complex-based, and filed an import declaration on the instant food with the Defendant on March 9, 2016, for the purpose of importing 23 tons of freezing and freezing from China (hereinafter “instant food”).

B. As a result of collection and inspection of part of the instant food in circulation, the Defendant: (a) was found in excess of the residue standard (the result of the inspection, 8.8mg/km, 0.7mg/km), and (b) March 21, 2016, issued an order for urgent recovery of the instant food on the ground of the foregoing inappropriate result.

C. On March 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of business and the disposal of products, and on May 22, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of business and the disposal of products, Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 29(1)8 of the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Control, Article 46 and [Attachment Table 13] of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act

Ⅱ Based on the individual criteria set forth in subparagraph 11 (k)(2)(A) and (30% or more of the permissible quantity of food additives, the respective dispositions of the suspension of business operations 15 days (period: from June 1, 2017 to June 15, 2017; hereinafter “instant disposition”) and the destruction of the instant food were taken, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

The defendant's implementation of reinspections upon the plaintiff's request for reinspection of the food of this case is a continuous act as stipulated in the law, and the defendant's implementation of reinspections is not followed, and there is procedural defect in the disposition

B. In addition, ① there was an obvious error in the Defendant’s inspection on the products produced in the same manufacturing process as the instant products, and ② Exirates are proved as food additives, and Exirates are proved as safe.