직접생산확인 취소처분 취소소송
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise that manufactures adjacent wirenets, bricks, etc.
Pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Development of Market Support, the Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Minister of SMEs and Startups with the duties of confirming direct production, revoking direct production, and holding hearings.
Supply Request No. 3,759,00 G HG 3,934,180 G HG 3,984,540 G HG 3,984,540 G G HG 3,984,540 G MG 1,60 PP support 2,064,160 QR 1,00 QR 1,031,040 QR 1,00 QR 1,00 QR 1,031,040 TN 676,620
B. In accordance with Article 9 of the Act on Support for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, the Plaintiff obtained direct production confirmation from the Defendant on the contact network among competing products open only to small and medium enterprises, and entered into a contract with multiple suppliers with the Public Procurement Service, between November 16, 2018 and December 26, 2018, supplied the contact network to the end-user institutions, such as C (hereinafter “instant product”).
C. From June 29, 2018 to February 26, 2019, the Public Procurement Service reported that “V, which was subject to the disposition of unfair trade practice (hereinafter “V”), was no longer supplied to the C group any longer, with the melting wire network and the tampering, and continued to supply the Plaintiff who was not capable of directly producing the tampering due to the lack of production facilities,” and conducted a field investigation (hereinafter “instant field investigation”) against the Plaintiff and the head office and factory from February 13, 2019 to February 15, 2019.
As a result of the instant on-site investigation, the Public Procurement Service determines that the Plaintiff purchased and supplied the instant product from V without directly producing it, and requests the Defendant to review the revocation of the certificate of direct production verification against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2019.