1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on July 15, 1986 and established for the purpose of selling medicine, medical supplies, equipment, etc., and is a drug wholesaler under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

The Plaintiff was exposed to the Defendant while keeping 30 boxes of Gabs (3,600 disease) as an over-the-counter medicine (hereinafter “the instant medicine”) at a place of business located on the fourth floor of the building A located in Chungcheongnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant place of business”).

B. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 171,710,000 (hereinafter “instant penalty surcharge”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, a drug wholesaler, violated Article 47(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 12450, Mar. 18, 2014); Article 32(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25529, Jul. 28, 2014); on the ground that the Plaintiff, a drug wholesaler, was in violation of Article 81 and 76 of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Article 50 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act in lieu of business suspension by applying individual criteria under item (f) of this case; and Article 32(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25529, Jul. 28, 2014).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the claim on July 9, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 15 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 47(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which is the basis for the disposition of this case, which is the non-existence of the grounds for the disposition of this case, and Article 32(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, provides for the storage of drugs owned by drug wholesalers for the purpose of sale for quality control of distribution of drugs, and Article 32(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act applies