1. The disposition revoking the registration of the business that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacturing and processing business of food, such as Kim(b)(b) and so on in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff received a water quality inspection report from C, a water quality inspection institution, stating that “Unconformity is determined because it exceeds 0.3mg/L, the base value of which was 0.764mg/L, as a result of detection of simple network 0.764mg/L as a result of the inspection of water quality with respect to groundwater used by the Plaintiff in washing rice, cry, etc., and rice g/L

C. On January 10, 2017, public officials belonging to the Daejeon Regional Food and Drug Safety Office and the Macheon-gun found the water quality inspection result while conducting a sanitary inspection on the Plaintiff’s workplace. As a result of the inspection, as a result, the Plaintiff was deemed to have manufactured and processed food using groundwater determined inappropriate as above, and requested D, which is the head of the Plaintiff’s headquarters, to affix a seal on the confirmation document as above. However, D rejected this.

On January 11, 2017, the Cheongbuk-do Governor notified the Defendant that “the Plaintiff violated the Food Sanitation Act by using inappropriate groundwater.” On June 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the registration of business (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 44 and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff manufactured, clean and sold foods using groundwater, which the Plaintiff was determined inappropriate, and violated Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act by manufacturing, washing and selling foods using the same.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 7, 10 evidence, and Eul 1, 2, and 3 evidence, each of the statements (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no reason to dispose of the ground for disposition 1 has immediately ceased the use of the relevant groundwater, purchased the water thereafter, or manufactured the products using the underground water in neighboring restaurants that received a decision of appropriateness.

Public officials who conduct sanitary inspections against the plaintiff do not directly confirm the plaintiff's production site.