1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise that engages in the manufacturing and installation business of elevators, and was confirmed directly production of elevators (sub-part name: elevators for passengers, elevators for cargo, dumgs, and wheelchairs liftss) produced at the plaintiff's plant located in the 146-3 (Unam-dong), Papju-si, Papju-si, Papju-si, for the period of validity from September 22, 2015 to September 21, 2017.

On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of the elevator for the construction of the construction for the construction of the construction site on November 15, 2016 with the Public Procurement Service and the procuring entity as the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and the terms and conditions of the contract and delivery as the site installation on November 15, 2016, and supplied the elevator for passengers under the said contract.

(2) On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff’s employees issued a letter of confirmation that “the instant elevator supplied by the Plaintiff was supplied to a new elevator company, i.e., a balanced press, a car platform, and a car frame among the instant elevator, and a new elevator company installed and constructed after reporting the subcontract establishment to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.”

On July 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a plan for measures, such as the revocation of direct production due to the violation of the verification of direct production related to the instant elevator. The Plaintiff, in the hearing process, submitted the Plaintiff’s opinion that “the Plaintiff registered the elevator manufacturing business with five items (a car platform, a car platform, a balance press, a platform assembly, and a platform locking device). The Plaintiff purchased a car platform and a car platform, which are inevitably parts due to the acceptance of the existing Incheon factory, but directly produced the remaining three items, and thus is not in violation.”

On September 15, 2017, the Defendant, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform direct production (e.g., non-performance of essential processes and sub-production) and on the purchase promotion and market support for products of small and medium enterprises.