1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2014, the Plaintiff obtained direct production verification (C) from the Defendant with respect to a factory located in the Chungcheongnam-gun B (hereinafter “factory”) and produced and sold the said product in the name of “D” in accordance with Article 9 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “FE”).

B. On December 2015, the Plaintiff participated in the “E” bid announced by the Incheon Regional Procurement Service, and entered into a supply contract as a successful bidder (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff supplied a secondary distribution for civil engineering. Of the secondary distribution for civil engineering supplied by the Plaintiff, part of the parts of the secondary distribution supplied by the Plaintiff was that it was produced at a factory located within four in the Danbuk-gun of the Danbuk-gun Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Ssung”) that was leased from the Sungsung Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ssung Industry”).

C. On December 26, 2016, the Defendant revoked the verification of direct production for all products for which the Plaintiff confirmed direct production based on Article 11(2)2 and 3, (3), and (5) 2 and 3 of the Act on Support of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the criteria for the verification of direct production by producing and supplying secondary distribution for civil engineering at a factory that meets the standards for direct production and fails to obtain the confirmation of direct production, and issued a disposition to restrict the application for the verification of direct production for six months from the date of revocation.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1, on November 21, 2014, requested the Defendant to verify direct production, the Plaintiff’s factory, a factory owned by the Plaintiff, and the factory building from the sexual light industry.