1. The disposition revoking the certification of eco-label made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 15, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained certification of eco-label to the effect that the period of certification satisfies the standards for certification of goods subject to environment mark under Article 17(3) of the Environmental Technology and Industry Support Act (hereinafter “Environmental Technology Industry Act”), Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 34(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the grounds that the period of certification is from July 4, 2017 to July 3, 2019, and the grounds for certification is “reduction of harmful substances and reduction of environmental pollution” (hereinafter “Environmental Technology Industry Support Act”).

On October 23, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that DMAc (N, N-Dethyceides) will be cancelled on the basis of Article 23(1)2 of the Environmental Technology Industry Act on the ground that each of the dMAcs (N, N-Dethyceides) was detected, and that such dMAc (N, N-Dethyceceides) would be cancelled on the ground that it failed to meet the environmental-related certification standards. On November 2, 2017, the Defendant held a hearing on November 2, 2017.

On November 15, 2017, the Defendant revoked the certification of eco-label for each of the instant sets on the grounds of the same reason (i.e., “it is reasonable to view that the remaining residuals remain in a considerable quantity even if the DMAC was used as a solution cleaning tool for the reaction season, and then mixed in the following process as a product component due to managerial insolvency).”

(2) The disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, on the ground that the disposition of this case is lawful, for the following reasons, by the following reasons: (a) there is no dispute regarding the disposition of this case (which is the ground for recognition); (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional parcel number).

The detection of DMAc in each of the instant sets is the inside, pipes, and propellers of the reaction machine (a composite device that produces PU won with a tank of about five tons) before producing the following slot machines (a combination device that produces PU won with a tank of about five tons) by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C”) supplying the Plaintiff with the amount of PU (PU) as individual raw materials of the instant sets.