1. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant stated the other party to the disposition as “Plaintiff” in the purport of the claim No. A, a corporation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) is a food manufacturing and processing enterprise producing C (hereinafter “instant food”).

B. On September 22, 2017, public officials belonging to the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Health and Environment Research Institute collected the instant food (distribution period October 10, 2017) of A production being sold within its jurisdiction and requested the inspection to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Health and Environment Research Institute.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government Health and Environment Research Institute reported the content to the Defendant on October 17, 2017, when propy acid, which is a preservation fee that cannot be detected in rice tea, pursuant to the old food standards and specifications (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety No. 2018-8, August 22, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “instant announcement provision”), was detected in the instant food in accordance with the old food standards and specifications.

C. The defendant visited and investigated A, and received data related to the food of this case from A.

On January 5, 2018, Article 75(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act and Article 89 [Attachment 23] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1472, Jun. 28, 2018; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act”) were imposed on A in accordance with Article 7(4) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 15484, Mar. 13, 2018; hereinafter “former Food Sanitation Act”) and disposal of the relevant product for one month of business suspension and one month (the instant disposition of business suspension for one month).

On the other hand, on September 18, 2015, A was ordered to commence rehabilitation as the District Court 2015 Gohap1018, and on the same day, A was appointed as a custodian of A.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1. Grounds for negligence of duty.