1. The Defendant’s revocation of the “direct production verification” disposition against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. Pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Development Support, which was enforced at the time of the Plaintiff, and Article 5(3) of the Enforcement Rule thereof, the Defendant was entrusted with the authority to verify direct production and revoke direct production pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on Support of Market Development and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

It was confirmed that the “Automatic Control Team” and “Automatic Control System” were directly produced.

B. On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) under which “a negotiated contract, product name: automatic building control device (hereinafter referred to as “instant product”), contract amount: KRW 39,757,500, and delivery period: up to September 3, 2014” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”); and around September 2014, the Plaintiff installed and supplied the instant product to the Seoul Regional Headquarters.

C. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) investigated whether the instant product was directly produced (hereinafter “instant investigation”); and (b) revoked the confirmation of direct production of all products received by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 11(2)3 and (3) of the former Act on the Development of Market Support (amended by Act No. 13094, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the ground that “direct production was not performed” against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2016.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1-6 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff directly produced the instant product by purchasing the “Program Operation”, etc. from C, following the process of directly manufacturing and installing the “System Operation Program.”

Therefore, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful.

3. On the grounds delineated below, the instant disposition is unlawful. A.

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

B. Fact-finding 1 The Plaintiff around July 2014.