1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of an enterprise that manufactures and sells drinking water and water purifiers with the trade name “C” in Busan Seo-gu, and the Defendant was entrusted with the verification of direct production and revocation thereof by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Development Support (hereinafter “Act”), Article 34(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Enforcement Rule thereof, and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

B. On June 15, 2009, pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act, the Defendant issued a certificate of direct production to the Plaintiff from May 6, 2009 to May 5, 2010, the term of validity from May 6, 2009 to May 22, 2010, the name of competing products (excluding domestic use), the term of validity, the term of validity, the term of validity, the term of validity, and the detailed products: the food volume, the term of validity, the term of validity from June 18, 2012 to June 17, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Water Supply Business Headquarters of Busan Metropolitan City on the supply of 78 drinking water produced by the Plaintiff to a designated school within 40 days after receiving a demand for supply from the Water Supply Business Headquarters of Busan Metropolitan City from July 24, 2012 to June 30, 2013.

The Plaintiff imported from the United States ELKAY only the case of a drinking machine and assembled other parts, and supplied them to each school in accordance with the supply contract.

Based on Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5)3 of the Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the confirmation of direct production should be revoked as follows, inasmuch as the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff supplied products not directly produced after concluding a supply contract with a public institution.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) revoked products: (a) all products verified directly for production: The grounds for revocation; (b) all products supplied without direct production after entering into a supply contract with a public institution for six months.