1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of “a determination as to a justifiable cause which cannot be caused by a neglect of duty” as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article

The second page 12 of the Cosmetics Act (amended by Act No. 15488, Mar. 13, 2018; hereinafter “cosmetic Act”).

b) in 198,00

The Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act in Chapter 13 of the 2nd one is the Enforcement Rule of the cosmetic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1516, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act").

b) in 198,00

The 5th Ethical 5th Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical E.

Part 8 through 10 shall be deleted from the 4th place.

The first to seventh parallels 1 to 5 shall be as follows.

Considering the following circumstances recognized in light of the above legal principles, each of the instant dispositions may not be deemed to have abused discretion, taking into account the overall purport of arguments in the Health Units, Gap 7, Eul 8, Eul 1, and Eul 2:

The Plaintiff is a manufacturer and manufacturer-seller who confirms what materials are not usable for cosmetics and assumes responsibility for manufacturing cosmetics using such materials or not selling cosmetics using such materials.

However, from July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff has long been prohibited from using the cosmetics.