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 a company that runs an indoor building construction business, etc. established on April 7, 199. The Defendant is an institution that is entrusted with the duties of determining whether to directly produce products pursuant to Article 9(4), issuing certificates of direct production, and revoking direct production verification pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (Amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter “Fair Support Act”), and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a small and medium enterprise owner who obtained the verification of direct production of the raw materials from the Defendant, entered into a purchase contract with the Public Procurement Service, supplied a timber floor material (hereinafter “the instant floor material”) to a public institution using the national funeral market operated by the Public Procurement Service.

The defendant conducted an investigation by requesting the plaintiff to submit relevant data according to the civil petition that the plaintiff supplied non-direct production products to public institutions.

C. As a result of the investigation of direct production, the Defendant appears to have supplied the imported complete products and revoked the confirmation of direct production for all products for which the Plaintiff verified direct production on October 2, 2014 through the hearing procedure.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff imported raw materials, and attached mashing materials through the foundation process, and directly produces the floor floor products completed through the home-breaking process. The instant disposition based on different premise is unlawful. The Defendant issued the certificate of direct production. (2) At the time of issuing the certificate of direct production, the Defendant was conducting a local inspection on the Plaintiff’s factory, and the Plaintiff’s production process.