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 is a small and medium business proprietor who manufactures and sells metal structures, etc., and the Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration with the duties of verifying direct production, revoking direct production, and revoking direct production, pursuant to the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Markets

B. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of direct production from the Defendant with respect to the product name “Crain”, and the detailed name of the product (sub-part number) was ① electric East-rop (2410160201), ② electric East-ro chain (2410160202), ③ Hybrecra (2410165201), and the effective period was from May 24, 2013 to May 23, 2015.

C. On July 2013, the Plaintiff participated in the tender “B” in 2013 (Public Notice of Goods C of the Government Procurement Service; hereinafter “instant tender”) that the Public Procurement Service conducted only as a holder of a certificate of direct production verification (name of goods: Bricker) and was selected as a successful bidder. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for B (hereinafter “instant contract”) in 2013 where the place of delivery and the place of delivery are designated with the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (hereinafter “instant order”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff produced and supplied the instant clicker (hereinafter “instant clicker”).

On January 2014, the Defendant reported the violation of direct production with the Plaintiff, and investigated the actual state of direct production by the Plaintiff on January 29, 2014 based on Article 11(1) of the Act on Support for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and Article 32-2 of the Operational Guidelines for Public Purchase System for Small and Medium Enterprise Products. The Defendant is “D” to the instant Lera.

The plaintiff confirmed the fact that the plaintiff did not directly produce the cream of this case, which is specified as the manufacturing source.

As to this, the plaintiff is not a vever, but a window, small and medium enterprise proprietors.