1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for one month that the Plaintiff rendered on February 13, 2019 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 13, 1997, while running a livestock industry with permission for installation of livestock excreta discharge facilities, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the fertilizer production business in the name of “C” in Yangsan-si B on December 13, 2016 and produced the livestock excreta discharge effect (hereinafter “ liquid manure”).

B. On December 1, 2018, the Defendant collected samples for quality inspection in the liquid manure located in a tank tank with the consent of the Plaintiff and requested E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to conduct the quality inspection of samples on December 3, 2018.

E analyzed the sample, and around December 11, 2018, around December 2018, E sent to the Defendant an analysis report containing the content of “Acele 219.09 g/km from harmful ingredients (legal standards: 130 g/km)” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the quality inspection on December 12, 2018.

C. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the result of the quality inspection, and the Defendant, who did not file an application for the quality inspection of fertilizers, requested a quality inspection of samples to FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on December 28, 2018, and FF, on January 15, 2019, sent an analysis record to the Defendant, stating “Icele 132.97mg/km (Legal Standards: 130mg/km) out of harmful ingredients,” etc.

On February 13, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend business operations for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 20(1)8 of the Fertilizer Control Act and to order the Plaintiff to recall and discard the pertinent product on the ground that “the Plaintiff produced and supplied fertilizers exceeding the maximum content of harmful components as determined by the legal standards, in violation of Article 14(2) of the Fertilizer Control Act.”

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission. However, Gyeongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the administrative appeal on April 30, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8.