1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 2 that is removed or added, the "Land Improvement Measure" in the 12th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd c. "soil Improvement Measure," and the 13th c. "(hereinafter referred to as the "instant revocation of the registration") "(hereinafter referred to as the "instant revocation of the registration") shall be deemed to be "the revocation of the registration of participation in bidding for food production". The following is added between the 3rd 12 and 13, and the 3rd 13th c. "A." and the 5th 16th c. "C.".

Plaintiff

Article 7(1) of the former Criteria for the Confirmation of Direct Production of Products (amended by the Government Procurement Service’s Notice No. 2014-2, Feb. 27, 2014; hereinafter “Criteria for the Confirmation of Direct Production”) of the former Standards for the Verification of Direct Production of Products under the Government Procurement Service’s Registration of Products under the Act on June 18, 2015; hereinafter “former Criteria for the Confirmation of Direct Production”) refers to the possession and lease of production facilities. However, in the case of lease possession, it should be deemed to require additional verification of documentary evidence, such as lease agreement. The Plaintiff was in possession of a factory and food distribution facility located in the Hadong-dong (hereinafter “C”) on May 2014, the Plaintiff was in fact equipped with the production facilities required under the said Standards.

Therefore, the revocation of the registration of this case on the ground that it is inappropriate for the production of food products is illegal due to the lack of the grounds for the disposition, and the restriction disposition of this case on the ground that it constitutes a person who fails to implement the contract without justifiable grounds after cancelling the contract of this case according to the revocation of the registration of this case is without any grounds for the disposition,