직접생산확인취소처분취소의 소
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. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasoning (including the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, but excluding the corresponding part of the judgment, hereinafter “3. conclusion”), and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The 5th last act of correcting the corrected part shall be deemed to read “the fact” as “the fact, matter of fact, and fact that “it does not directly produce products, such as subordinate products or finished products of another company, and the finished products directly produced, are prohibited from delivery of trademark attachment products of another company.”
6 The following shall be added on the 6th day below:
【The Defendant asserts that the scope of the product covered by the verification of direct production in the Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court Decision 2015Du35741 Decided June 24, 2015) should be interpreted as consistent with the scope of the product specified in the Act on the Management and Use of Information on Commodity List, the name (goods classification number) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the name (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub
However, the above precedents required by the Defendant are related to the issue at which a small and medium enterprise owner, who was verified directly for the direct production of the “radio transmitter” and “sal-way radio” purchased the completed “digitalless radio” from another company and supplied it to a public agency. Thus, even according to the criteria for the confirmation of direct production, the relevant classification is unclear.