logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.12 2018구합70004
직접생산확인 취소처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In accordance with Article 9 of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”), the Plaintiff, who is engaged in furniture work in the name of “C”, was confirmed by Defendant on April 24, 2016 as to the total of 22 households, including the detailed name number, “5611210201,” and detailed name, the product of the “person for work” (hereinafter “instant product”), etc., among which the Plaintiff produced small and medium enterprises, was identified as having the validity term as to the total of 22 households, including the Plaintiff’s products, etc., which are competing products among the small and medium enterprise owners of the Plaintiff’s production, from April 24, 2016 to April 23, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as "existing direct production verification"). (b)

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Daejeon Local Government Procurement Service to purchase three of the instant products (hereinafter “instant products”) with the contract amount of KRW 408,000 with the contract amount of KRW 408,00,00 among the instant products, “E”, “F”, “610 x 660 x 10 x 1160 meters” (i.e., 136,000 x 3), “G”, “G”, “H”, “485 x 530 x 10 meters” (hereinafter “instant secondary products”) with the contract amount of KRW 2,025,00 (=67,500 x 30 m).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

Since then, on December 17, 2016, the Plaintiff received demand for the delivery of the instant first product and the instant second product from the business office of the Asia-si, Busan-si, the demanding entity for the supply of the instant second product.

(D) The Plaintiff supplied all of its supply. Around April 10, 2018, immediately before the expiration date of the existing direct production verification, the Plaintiff supplied a total of 26 types of households (excluding the instant products from April 24, 2018 to April 23, 2020, the validity period for the exclusion of the instant products) from the Defendant’s production to April 26, 201, including the sedi, etc., of the Plaintiff’s competing products, pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages.

arrow