logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.08.30 2018구합66104
직접생산확인 취소처분 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are both small and medium entrepreneurs who engage in the manufacture and sales business of all households. The Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Minister of SMEs and Startups with the authority to cancel direct production and to hold hearings pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Development Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. On December 2015, Plaintiff A’s direct production confirmation, conclusion of a contract with multiple suppliers, and supply of products) Plaintiff A’s products with the name of “561210201,” and the detailed name of “contractor for work” (hereinafter “instant products”) pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages from Defendant around December 2015.

(2) On December 4, 2015, from December 3, 2017 to December 3, 2017, the term of validity of the household of the instant product, etc. was confirmed by direct production with D located at the time of opening a direct production verification factory. 2) Plaintiff A entered into a contract with multiple suppliers to supply a total of 6,910,000 households of the instant product, etc. to each end-user institution by stipulating the term of contract on January 23, 2016 to “from January 23, 2016 to September 7, 2017” (hereinafter “E number”; hereinafter “A”) and following the confirmation that the delivery period under the said purchase contract was omitted, the relevant contract was amended to stipulate “30 days after the request for supply” as the relevant provision was added.

(Contract Number F, “F”, “A”, and “A Second Agreement”) . After January 6, 2017, Plaintiff A, from the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education on January 6, 2017, (i) two model names of the instant products with respect to A Contract A from G High Schools, (ii) one model name “J” among the instant products, and (iii) one model name “H” among the instant products from the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education on April 18, 2017 with respect to the A Contract A from K High Schools, and (iv) May 26, 2017.

arrow