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

A. The Plaintiff was designated as a production facility for products manufactured by persons with severe disabilities who produce CCTV, power distribution teams, control devices, and lighting equipment from November 21, 2014 to November 20, 2017 pursuant to Article 9 of the Special Act on the Preferential Purchase of Products with severe disabilities and Article 17(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as a corporation engaged in rehabilitation welfare programs, various types of technology acquisition programs, etc. for persons with severe disabilities.

B. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the designation of production facilities for products manufactured by persons with severe disabilities to the Plaintiff on the ground that “(i) the supply of CCTV (government level) for crime prevention in the residents’ participatory budget within the jurisdiction of the Busan-gu, the Defendant failed to perform the essential process for direct production of a video monitoring device (CCTV) under the Standards for the Confirmation of Direct Production among Small and Medium Enterprises (153) (purchase of products with a general enterprise (i.e., purchase and supply of products without direct production) (i.e., one or more electric and electronic products) and (ii) the Defendant supplied the finished products of a general enterprise to the public and failed to perform the obligation of direct production).”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition 1 that the plaintiff did not directly produce CCTV for the purpose of security of CCTV supplied pursuant to the "contract for the supply of CCTV for the purpose of crime prevention in the residents' participation budget within the city of Yan-gu". However, the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff, a small and medium enterprise with the function required by the Jeonju-si, is an item of which it is practically impossible to directly produce, and the Korean Disabled Development Institute that vicariously executes the contract on behalf of the defendant and Jeonju-si, it does not constitute a violation of the obligation of direct production.

In addition, the defendant directly produces lighting organizations, but at the time of the on-site inspection, the plaintiff is at the Korea Industrial Technology Laboratory.