1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells fire-fighting-related products.

On October 19, 2015, pursuant to Article 16 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Technology Innovation Act”), the Plaintiff filed an application with C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant product”) for the extension of the term of validity of the certification of a new product of this case to “the extension of the term of validity of the new product of this case” with the Association D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Association”) on April 20, 2015, from April 20 to April 19, 2018.

On May 23, 2018, the instant Association notified the Plaintiff that the instant application was rejected.

(2) On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant Association regarding the first notification, but the instant Association notified on July 13, 2018 that “the result of the review of the Committee on Objection was dismissed for the following reasons.”

(2) On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for revocation of the second notification of this case on October 2, 2018, on the following grounds: (a) the extension of the term of validity of a new product under the present standard is appropriate to approve the product which has been technically improved at the expiration of three years; and (b) the extension of the term of validity of a new product should also be equipped with Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Technology Innovation Act, regardless of the legitimacy of the public notification to dismiss the objection; and (c) the Plaintiff’s submission of documents and interview to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not have any explanation on the extension

However, on February 12, 2019, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling of dismissal on the ground that “the second notification itself does not affect the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, and thus constitutes matters not subject to administrative appeal.”

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;