1. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on June 21, 201, six months of the suspension of sales of all items (from March 20, 2017 to September 19, 2017).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business of cosmetics.

B. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a recovery order under the main sentence of Article 23(1) of the Cosmetics Act, on September 9, 2016, to the effect that the Plaintiff’s imported cosmetic B products (hereinafter “B”) and 134 products C products (hereinafter “C”) include the mixture of merl, lusium, merl, lusium, and lusium, which are determined as non-useable raw materials, other than the products in a cleaning business entity, and that “the Defendant shall take necessary measures with regard to the suspension and recall of the sale of the non-use cosmetics and prepare a recovery plan and deliver them to the Defendant by September 19, 2016” (hereinafter “instant order”).

C. However, the instant order was written by the Defendant’s mistake on the product name of D (hereinafter “D”) that is another product imported by the Plaintiff instead of B, instead of Non-compliant cosmetics.

The Defendant on February 21, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit a recovery plan under the instant order to the Plaintiff by September 19, 2016, the latter part of Article 23(1), the main sentence of Article 24(1) and Article 24(2), and Articles 14-3 and 29(1) [Attachment Table 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act.

2. A disposition of six months (from March 20, 2017 to September 19, 2017) of the suspension of the sales of all items was issued in accordance with individual standards item (r).

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] / Each entry in Gap's 1, 2, 6, 8, 13 through 15, Eul's 13 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s allegation 1 Plaintiff’s representative director E leases and uses part of the office space of F Co., Ltd., and independently operates the Plaintiff. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff opened a store in the department store.