1. The Defendant’s revocation of direct production verification issued to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing wood bridge, school bridge, and play facilities under the trade name of “C”.

Around March 2017, the Plaintiff was confirmed directly produced by the Defendant as to the period of validity of the furniture (referred to as the head of book, harassment, object box, book book, work chair) from March 31, 2017 to March 30, 2019.

B. The Defendant revoked the confirmation of direct production with the Plaintiff on June 20, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have the “Foundation flag (direct goods, Les Foundation) and the industrial rewing framework,” which is an essential production facility for the category of chairs as set forth in the criteria for confirmation of direct production of competing products between small and medium enterprises (Notice No. 2018-9, the Ministry of SMEs and Startups Notice No. 201, hereinafter “instant Notice”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3’s evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 11(2)2 of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Markets (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) provides for revocation of the confirmation of direct production in cases where a small and medium enterprise proprietor fails to meet the criteria for confirmation of direct production of competing products between small and medium enterprises by leasing, selling, etc. production facilities.

The instant notice provides for the essential production facilities of “the kinds of chairs other than metal,” and the Plaintiff did not have the foundation and the industrial rewing framework among the production facilities.

Therefore, the instant disposition is based on Article 11(2)2 of the Act on the Development of Market Support.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant public notice does not have the validity of the statutory order, because the Plaintiff only produces the chairs by using wood only, but does not use any materials such as direct goods or sickers, etc., and thus, the foundation and industrial rewing framework is entirely unnecessary, and the instant public notice demanding that such production facilities be inevitably equipped is not effective.

The plaintiff is the same as the plaintiff.