A. The Plaintiff is a company established on March 13, 1975 for the purpose of engaging in the business of manufacturing, leasing, and specialized management of toilets. The Defendant is an institution entrusted with the authority to verify whether a small and medium enterprise is directly produced by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Act on the Support of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) and Article 27(1)2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Support of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, or to revoke direct production verification received by a small

B. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant rendered the confirmation of direct production with respect to “other mobile toilets” with respect to the Plaintiff’s “the period of validity pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act on Support on Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter “instant direct production confirmation”) from March 2, 2016 to March 1, 2018.

C. Since then, on April 6, 2016, the Public Procurement Service requested the Defendant to verify whether the Plaintiff was directly produced, and the Defendant, upon the said request, held the hearing procedures with respect to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2016, and as a result, determined that the Plaintiff supplied a subordinate-produced and other mobile toilets without directly producing 13 public institutions, such as Nowon-gu, etc. on the basis of the materials, such as the purchase proposal for the Plaintiff submitted in 2015.

On July 20, 2016, based on Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5)3 of the Act on Support of Development of Agricultural Products, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke direct production verification of the instant case and a disposition to restrict direct production of the instant case for six months (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 cited that the product produced in 2015 was produced in the lower court on the grounds of the instant disposition, but the instant direct production verification is conducted.