직접생산확인취소처분 취소
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 business entity producing “a dead structure” with the trade name “B,” and the Defendant is an institution entrusted with the authority to cancel the confirmation of direct production by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration 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 “Act”) and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree.
B. The Plaintiff was verified by the Defendant for direct production as effective from February 29, 2016 to February 28, 2018 with respect to the dead structure (the name of the components: PVF dead structure, PVF dead structure, PTPP dead structure, and other dead structure).
C. The Plaintiff entered into a procurement contract with the Public Procurement Service with the content that the Plaintiff supplies the dead structure produced by the Plaintiff to each end-user institution (hereinafter “the instant dead structure”).
(1) The term “each of the instant contracts” and “instant No. 2” are added to the respective contracts listed below (hereinafter referred to as the table). / [Attachment] The name of the delivery date and standard contract price of the procuring entity using the order / [Attachment] 13,792,00 won for the prevent structure (PVDF structure) 13,792,00 won on April 7, 2016, 2016, and KRW 2,000 of the Gangseo-gu Local Procurement Service DD on May 19, 2016 (PVDF structure) 12,480,000 won for the prevent structure (PDF structure) on July 21, 2016.
D. The Plaintiff supplied the instant dead structure to an end-user institution in accordance with each of the instant contracts, but the Defendant, on January 23, 2017, issued a disposition that the Plaintiff cancelled the confirmation of direct production that the Plaintiff received from the previous Defendant as of February 1, 2017 pursuant to Article 11(2)3 and (3) of the Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the essential process of direct production (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no ground for disposition 1.