1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained the confirmation of direct production by setting the effective period from December 19, 2013 to December 28, 2015 pursuant to Article 9 of the former Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on the Support of Market Support”) with respect to an elevator (the name of the parts for passengers) which is a competing product open only to small and medium enterprises (hereinafter “the first direct production verification”), and obtained the confirmation of direct production by setting the effective period from March 7, 2016 to March 6, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “verification of Second Direct Production”). Contract amount of supply order quantity for construction name name of the demanding procuring entity, B Korea Land and Housing Corporation Hanam Business Headquarters C, Section elevator passenger of the Section C, Section C, and KRW 514,79,980 on December 31, 2015

B. Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service to supply the elevator to each end-user institution.

On June 24, 2014, pursuant to the above contract, the Plaintiff was demanded by the Public Procurement Service to supply the elevator for passengers with the following contents:

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant supply request”). The Plaintiff supplied all 18 elevators for passengers until December 31, 2015 upon the said request.

C. On July 19, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on July 19, 201, and held a hearing on August 16, 2017, and considered the Plaintiff’s opinions. On September 11, 2017, the Defendant revoked the confirmation of direct production of all products for which the Plaintiff confirmed direct production pursuant to Article 11(2)3 and (3) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Markets (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligation of direct production by making the instant supply request.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7 through 9, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4.