1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff was established on February 9, 2010 and has been engaged in the business of sanction, processing, etc. of timber.

Under 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)2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant is an institution entrusted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration with the authority to verify the direct production of a small and medium enterprise pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act on Support of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, or to revoke direct production verification

On November 201, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff the confirmation of direct production (hereinafter referred to as the “verification of the first direct production”) with respect to the plate materials [the name of the three parts is referred to as a “sloaked judgment”, “floring guide”, “sloy block”, and “luter”] up to November 10, 2013 pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act on Support on Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter referred to as “the confirmation of direct production”).

On March 5, 2013, the Defendant issued a notification to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff supplied the materials imported without direct production to the Namyang-si, Ansan-si, the Office of Education of Gangwon-do, the Office of Education of Gangwon-do, the Busan City, the Northern-si, the Hadong-gun, the Southern-si, the Southern-si, the Southern-si, etc. (hereinafter “Seoul-si, etc.”) on the ground that the confirmation of direct production of the first product was revoked (hereinafter “pre-sale disposition”) based on Article 11(2)3 of the Act on the Promotion of Real Estate Development.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Administrative Court seeking revocation of the preceding revocation under the Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap11987, and the said court concluded the pleadings on October 23, 2013 and rendered a favorable judgment on November 22, 2013, stating that “the revocation of the preceding revocation disposition is revoked.”

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court No. 2013Nu52782 against the above judgment.

However, around December 16, 2013, the Defendant again made the name of the detailed material in the board to the Plaintiff as well as the name of the material in the board to the Plaintiff.

with respect to paragraph (1).