1. Revoking revocation of direct production verification made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2018.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company operating boiler design and manufacturing business, etc. with its head office located in Gyeongdong-gun C, and the Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Minister of SMEs and Startups with the confirmation of direct production and revocation thereof pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “FE”).

B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained from the Defendant the confirmation of direct production of boiler and components (including gas burners, associated boilers, water boilers (including stoves), waste heat boiler, and indirect heating boiler) with the validity period from August 8, 2016 to August 7, 2018.

C. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Gwangju Metropolitan City and Gwangju Metropolitan City Comprehensive Construction Headquarters D for the manufacture and installation of the Jindo Water boiler, which was verified directly for the construction project of Gwangju Metropolitan City, and established the Jindo Water Boiler (hereinafter “instant boiler”).

On July 10, 2018, the Defendant revoked the confirmation of direct production of the Plaintiff on July 10, 2018 pursuant to Article 11 of the Act on Support for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly produce the boiler of this case and provided its subordinate offices to E and produced it.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1 through 3, 13, and 14 shall be recorded, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a technical cooperation agreement with E Co., Ltd., and received only the design drawings on the boiler, and directly produced the boiler at the Plaintiff’s factory.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case revoked the confirmation of direct production of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly produce the boiler of this case is unlawful.

4. Determination

A. The head of a public institution under the main sentence of Article 9(1) and (2) of the Act on the Development of Market Support and Article 10(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.