The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Markets (hereinafter “Market Support Act”), the Minister of SMEs and Startups may designate products directly produced or supplied by small and medium enterprises and deemed necessary to expand markets as competing products with small and medium enterprises (hereinafter “competitive products”).

(Article 6(1). The head of a public institution shall conclude contracts for procurement of competing products through limited competition intended only for small and medium entrepreneurs or designated competitive bidding among small and medium entrepreneurs (hereinafter referred to as “competitive bidding among small and medium entrepreneurs”).

(1) Article 8-2(1)2 of the former Act on the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 12499, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter “former Act on the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages”) provides that the head of a public institution shall restrict the participation in competitive bidding between small and medium enterprises and small and medium enterprises (including large enterprises that engage in the same type of business as large enterprises and a group of enterprises with specific control or subsidiary relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree) for fair competitive bidding between small and medium enterprises.

According to delegation, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Market Support prescribed that the relationship between a large enterprise and a small-medium enterprise falling under “where a large enterprise lends assets equivalent to the total number of stocks issued or total amount invested by the small-medium enterprise” is in a parent-subsidiary relationship

(Article 9-3 subparagraph 2 (c) and (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of this case”) 2. The reasoning of the lower judgment on the case reveals the following facts.

The Plaintiffs are small and medium entrepreneurs under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, and run K production and sales business by leasing K production facilities owned by conglomerates.