1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of an enterprise that manufactures and sells drinking water and water purifiers with the trade name “C” in Busan Seo-gu, and the Defendant was entrusted with the verification of direct production by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration and its revocation 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 (amended by Act No. 12499, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter “Act”) and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. On June 15, 2009, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of direct production as of June 15, 2009, pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act, the term of validity from May 6, 2009 to May 5, 2010, the term of validity from May 6, 2009 to May 22, 2010; the term of validity of competing products (excluding domestic use); the term of validity; the term of validity; the term of validity; and the detailed product: the food volume; the term of validity; and the term of validity of direct production from June 18, 2012 to June 17, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Water Supply Business Headquarters of Busan Metropolitan City on the supply of 78 drinking water produced by the Plaintiff to a designated school within 40 days after receiving a demand for supply from the Water Supply Business Headquarters of Busan Metropolitan City from July 24, 2012 to June 30, 2013.

The Plaintiff imported only the case of drinking water from the ELKKY company in the United States, assembled other parts, and supplied them to each school in accordance with the supply contract.

Based on Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5)3 of the Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the confirmation of direct production should be revoked as follows, inasmuch as the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff supplied products not directly produced after concluding a supply contract with a public institution.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) revoked products: (a) all products verified by direct production; (b) after entering into a supply contract with a public institution.