1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The disposition of business suspension rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating the J Chain Store Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subject store”) in Mapo-si B.

B. On June 26, 2013, the chief of the military police station: (a) on March 14, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s internal investigation with the Plaintiff, sold Kapacquequerels and booms cands to D, which had been sold in three combinations from the instant bakeries around March 14, 2013; (b) among the cands, one copy marked as December 31, 2012 during the distribution period (hereinafter “instant cands”) was included in the cands, and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. Accordingly, Article 75(1)13 and Article 44(1) of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 57 subparag. 6(k) of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 89 subparag. 10 of the attached Table 23(3)10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff kept the cans of this case for the purpose of selling them

A. On August 1, 2013, in accordance with subparagraph 4(d), the Plaintiff issued a disposition of business suspension of 15 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A’s 1, 2, and 3 evidence, Party B’s 1 and 4 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the distribution period of the same kind of product up to December 31, 2012, which was the same as the Plaintiff’s argument, was put in and sold all of the instant task points on May 29, 2012, and the same kind of product stored thereafter was put in the same kind of product until December 31, 2013, the distribution period of which was up to December 31, 2013; (D) was put in the same kind of product until December 31, 2013; (b) failed to present the original product at the time of the instant paragraph; (c) issued a disposition of non-defluence in a case violating the Food Sanitation Act against the Plaintiff; (d) there was no objective evidence that the product presented by the Plaintiff was sold from the instant task points; (d) there was no excessive demand for compensation; and (e) demand for return and return of money to the Plaintiff due to frequent production and accusation; and (e) demand for compensation.