1. Revocation of revocation of direct production verification made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2016.

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

Details of the disposition

On April 16, 2014, the Gwangju Regional Government Procurement Service published a purchase tender for "the 2014 calculous production and installation (the nine places)" (the 2014 calculous production (the demand institution: the Dang-gun, the contract method: the limitation competition, the electronic bidding method: the electronic bidding). In the public tender notice, the public tender notice clearly stated that the person who holds the certificate of direct production confirmation (the name of the three parts: Dobke) under Article 9 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter referred to as the "Market Support Act") will enter into a product procurement contract by means of competition among small and medium enterprise proprietors.The Gwangju Regional Government Procurement Service, on June 5, 2014, published a tender for "the purchase of the 2014 calulous production (Establishment) production (the 2014 calculous production (the culous institution: the demand institution, the : the contract method: the electronic bid).

The Plaintiff participated in each of the above bids and was selected as a successful bidder by the Defendant. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of each of the sub-contractors with the Gwangju Regional Procurement Service as the contract amount of KRW 384,912,00 on May 2, 2014, which is the contract amount of KRW 427,680,000 on June 20, 2014, and supplied the sub-users to the High-Seung-gun and the Young-si of the procuring entity.

On February 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a civil petition against the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015, that the Plaintiff violated the criteria for the verification of direct production of competing products between small and medium entrepreneurs (hereinafter “direct production verification criteria”) by producing subordinate products to small and medium enterprise proprietors, without directly manufacturing the essential manufacturing process, and on April 28, 2015, in relation to the Plaintiff’s report on violation of the direct production verification system.