1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in this Court are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted to the court of first instance are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance are justified). 2.

A. On the third page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s “Defendant” in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration”.

1) Following the third page 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment is added as follows: “On the other hand, the Government Organization Act was amended as Act No. 14839 on July 26, 2017, and the authority of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration related to the instant disposition was corrected and succeeded to Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration (hereinafter “the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration and the Minister of SMEs and Startups”).”

(2) 2) On the 6th 11th th 6th 1th 1th 6th 6th 11th 1th 2th 3th 12th 16th 12th 16th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 200, the Plaintiff stated that “the Defendant issued a notice of the instant disposition by stating that the Public Procurement Service imposed a restriction on participation in bidding for 2 years on the Plaintiff et al.” in relation to the notice of the instant disposition as the grounds for the disposition. In this case, Article 8(3)4 of the former Act on Support of Market Development or at least Article 8(3)3 of the same Act shall apply concurrently to the above provision. However, the Defendant asserted that “The Defendant changed the fact constituting the grounds for the disposition to a conviction against the Plaintiff employees and applied Article 8(3)3 of

. ..