1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

With respect to this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this case is intended under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제2면 제13행 중 “물품구매계약”을 “제3자단가계약”으로 고친다.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제5면 밑에서 두 번째 줄 중 “피고는”의 다음에 “위 추가 조사 과정에서”를 추가한다.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제6면 제11행 중 “통보하였다”를 “통보하면서, 피고가 한 위 추가 조사의 결과를 첨부하였는데, 원고가 납품한 사무용의자에 대해서 ‘원고가 D의 완제품을 매입하여 납품한 것으로 판단되고 원고는 청문회에서 D로부터 재단과 재봉이 완료된 부품을 세트로 매입하여 단순조립 후 납품한 사실을 인정하였다’는 것을 근거로 직접생산의무 위반으로 판단하였다.”로 고친다.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제6면 밑에서 두 번째 줄 중 “모든 제품 또는 해당 제품에”를 “모든 제품에”로 고친다.

◎ 제1심 판결문 제7면 제1행부터 제8면 제8행까지를 다음과 같이 고친다.

The part concerning Article 11(3) of the above Act concerning Article 11(2)3 (hereinafter referred to as “wholly revoked provision”).

The purpose of the legislation is to secure the effectiveness of the direct production verification system and to secure the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. The revocation of the direct production verification for all products received by the small and medium enterprise is an appropriate means to achieve the above legislative purpose, and ② the small and medium enterprise owner whose direct production verification for multiple products was verified, on the ground that there were grounds for revocation, such as the supply of clean production, etc. only for any of the products.