1. Revoking revocation of direct production verification made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2015.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a small and medium business proprietor who manufactures and sells a static power plant (a device that enables the stable supply of electricity even if a power failure, change in frequencies, power failure, etc. occurs in the UPS, and a device that stably supplies electricity), and was verified directly from the Defendant during the period from January 22, 2014 to January 21, 2016.

B. On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Armed Forces Finance Management Body for the manufacture and installation of UPS for the RGB character development business, and supplied a non-electric power source device to the Armed Forces Finance Management Body.

In relation to the above goods, on June 28, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit data to confirm whether the requirements for the confirmation of direct production meet and the implementation thereof, and on July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted data, such as the current status of supply by public institutions and the details of the composition of materials.

Then, on August 7, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of direct production on the ground that it failed to implement direct production (i.e., "design implementation" during the essential process) and held the hearing procedure on August 19, 2015.

C. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke direct production (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5)3 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had not directly designed and produced products.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the purpose of use, the Plaintiff’s claimless electric power source device has several types of products from small capacity less than 5 kVAtile to large capacity products belonging to 600 kmVA, and the design and structure are different depending on each type.

In this case.