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

A. On March 21, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of the business start-up business plan for the above business (hereinafter “instant business plan”) to the Defendant on March 21, 2008 for the purpose of engaging in the manufacturing of vessel components by constructing a factory on the land outside Gyeong-gun B and 26 parcels, Gyeongnam-gun, and the Defendant approved the instant business plan on May 9, 2008 pursuant to Article 33 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act.

B. On April 8, 201, the Plaintiff did not undertake a new factory construction work under the instant business plan, and the Defendant, in the event that the construction work is not commenced within three years from the date on which the approval was obtained for the business plan, or where the construction is suspended for at least one year after the commencement of the construction work, the Defendant, upon notification of the fact that the construction of the factory is not completed within four years after the approval for the business plan, urged the Plaintiff to complete the construction as soon as possible and implement the instant business plan. On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff again to implement the instant business plan by March 31, 2012, and not so, would proceed with the procedure for cancelling the approval for the business plan.

C. Notwithstanding the above promotional Gu, the Plaintiff failed to implement the instant project plan, and the Defendant, following the hearing procedure, suspended construction for more than one year after the commencement of the factory on September 19, 2012, and revoked the approval of the instant project plan on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not complete construction of the factory within four years after the approval of the project plan was obtained (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act of the Plaintiff-Appellant 1 seeks to cancel the approval of a business plan, the relevant person subject to the disposition changed the business plan or recommended to construct a factory for a fixed period.