1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an enterprise that is designated by the Defendant as an institution certifying environment-friendly agricultural and fishery products under the Act on the Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries and the Management and Support of Organic Food, Etc. (hereinafter “environment-friendly agriculture and fisheries Act”)

B. A on September 3, 2013, pursuant to Articles 20 and 34 of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act, filed an application with the Plaintiff for certification of non-bioticd livestock products related to his livestock pens located in Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter “the instant application site”).

On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to A an eco-friendly agricultural product certificate (a certification classification: anti-biotic product, certified product, and certified product: swine (meat) and term of validity: October 18, 2013 to A, after conducting an examination for certification (hereinafter referred to as “examination for certification in this case”); and October 18, 2013.

C. On May 12, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business three months (from May 13, 2014 to August 12, 2014) against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 35 [Attachment Table 10] of the Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs No. 108, Oct. 1, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Environment-Friendly Agriculture and Fisheries Act”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff examined the Plaintiff’s sample as a test report submitted by the applicant in the presence of the applicant or applicant’s family and conducted the certification work.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On May 21, 2014, the plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on May 21, 2014, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on December 9, 2014.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1-related regulations, a water prosecutor who certifies environment-friendly agricultural products is running for the last five years.