직접생산확인취소처분취소
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. Grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are stated.
Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition was conducted pursuant to Article 11(2)2 of the Act on the Support of Market Development. In light of the structure, etc. of Article 11(4) of the same Act, it should be deemed that the above subparagraph 2 applies only where a small and medium enterprise operator fails to voluntarily return the verification of direct production even though the content of the verification of direct production based on the first factory, which was verified by direct production, fails to meet the criteria for confirmation of direct production. However, the instant case does not change from the second factory, other than the first factory, to the human and physical facilities of the first factory. Thus, there is no ground for revocation prescribed in the above provision. 2) Even if it is interpreted that the instant disposition includes all cases where Article 11(2)2 of the Act on the Support of Market Development does not meet the criteria for the confirmation of direct production as alleged by the Defendant, whether the requirements for confirmation of direct production are satisfied should be determined based on whether it was directly produced with human and physical facilities that can substantially produce, and whether it is necessary in the second factory after completing production of the instant plant.
The requirements for the confirmation of direct production are directly produced.