logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.08 2018구합55890
직접생산확인취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise owner that provides C installation and supply business, and the Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Minister of SMEs and Startups with the verification of direct production, revocation of direct production, etc. pursuant to the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Development of Market Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”).

B. On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff refers to “D” I under the name of the Defendant.

With respect to the name “C” (the name of the detailed components E), the validity period was verified for direct production from November 7, 2016 to November 6, 2018.

(hereinafter “Confirmation of direct production of this case”). C.

On the other hand, on October 19, 2016, the FF Corporation announced a public announcement of the purchase of the I Facilities for Information and Communications Work forG and H Housing Complex (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and limited the qualification for participation in the construction to “the verification of direct production” under Article 9 of the former Act on Support for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The Plaintiff participated in the said bidding on November 8, 2016 and entered into an amendment agreement with the FF Corporation and the instant construction site as seen in Section C (b). The Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply B, and entered into an amendment agreement on April 18, 2017 with the content that the existing supply deadline is extended to December 7, 2017.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract,” and delivery under the instant contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant delivery”) D.

On November 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the confirmation of direct production of all products for which the Plaintiff confirmed direct production pursuant to Article 11(2)3 and (3) of the former Act on Support of Development of Agricultural Industries, on the ground that “The Plaintiff purchased K from J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) and supplied C to F Co., Ltd without directly producing C approved at the time of confirmation of direct production.”

arrow