1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff has reported on a spot-sale food manufacturing and processing business in part of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu B and the fourth floor, and has been engaged in a trade name "C".

The Plaintiff, i.e., processed plants, etc. and sold them on packaging. The Plaintiff’s packaging is indicated as “verification of the address in the shopping mall,” “Korea-Japan shopping mall CD, and date of manufacturing” as “the date of processing and processing at the bottom,” and “the date of distribution” as “the date of processing.”

The Plaintiff’s Internet shopping mall website uses the expression “good composition”, “fluent portrait composition”, “fluent portrait composition”, and “fluent portrait composition” as to products, and includes the address of the said place of business.

On October 20, 2016, the Defendant issued each disposition to the Plaintiff on October 20, 2016 pursuant to Article 10, Article 13, Articles 71, 72, and 75 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1349, Jan. 4, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 89 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1349, Jan. 4, 2017), such as suspension of business, 17 days of business, destruction of the relevant products, and corrective orders, pursuant to attached Table 23.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the administrative disposition on the remainder of the violation other than the corrective order under the Non-Indication of Cautions for Consumer Safety. However, on November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation with the Incheon District Court 2016Guhap54750, which revoked the 17th business suspension on June 15, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2017 through the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Nu59866).

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). The Defendant is an advertisement, manufacturing date, and location where consumers can mistake or confuse the Plaintiff’s foods as functional health foods.