1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s emergency stop devices, which are parts installed at the lower part of elevator car fluor, are entrusted to the outside part of the elevator car fluor, are limited to the measurement calculation work, and it is not recognized that the small and medium enterprise owner did not directly produce the product (elevator). Thus, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke direct production of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(2) As the Plaintiff performed the supervision of the design and assembly process of an elevator in the course of final assembly of an elevator at the construction site (the ground for Disposition 1) and final assembly of an elevator, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant directly produced the elevator even if the Plaintiff had ordered others to engage in the assembly process at the construction site.

(2) the reasons for such action.

The standard of confirmation of direct production of competing products among small and medium business operators under the delegation of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Act on Support for Development of Market Markets (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) is “the standard of this case’s standard of confirmation of direct production of competing products between small and medium business operators on December 31, 2015, which was repealed and enacted by the Public Notice of the Small and Medium Business Administration No. 2015-70.”

In relation to this, if it is interpreted that even if part of the assembly process at the final installation site of an elevator cannot be recognized as being directly produced because it does not directly perform it, the standard of this case does not have the effect as a legitimate legal order, since it requires a small and medium enterprise to be equipped with equipment that is not necessary for direct production.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 6, 10-1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the grounds for disposition No. 1, the plaintiff directly produced and supplied the elevator.