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 enterprise that manufactures and sells fire-fighting appliances, 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 the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Support for Development of Markets (hereinafter

B. The Plaintiff received the confirmation of direct production from the Defendant for the term of validity for the fire receiver from May 22, 2015 to May 21, 2017.

On December 31, 2014, 1201, the delivery term of the contract-based end-user institution for the contract date-based contract-based contract date-based contract-based contract-based A-1BL 2, the Gyeonggi District Headquarters of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the Gyeonggi District Headquarters of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, on September 2, 2016, 2015, which was December 3, 2015, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Policy Headquarters of Pyeongtaek A-4BL apartment of the Dap Innovation A-1BL on April 28, 2015.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service for the procurement of a fire receiver including each of the contracts listed below (hereinafter “instant contract”), and supplied the fire receiver.

On December 22, 2016, the Defendant revoked the confirmation of direct production of all products for which the Plaintiff verified direct production pursuant to Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5)3 of the Act on Support for Development of Agricultural Industries and imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff to restrict the application for direct production for six months from the date of revocation, on the grounds that “the Defendant did not directly implement the operation program process for the fire receiver in supplying the fire receiver under the instant contract, and violated the obligation to implement the essential production process by manufacturing the finished products.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 does not constitute a motion program.