The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

. It is reasonable to deem that there was no particular obstacle.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

In the official text, “request for the submission of opinions as a result of the survey on the main loan system” sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2019, the document of this case attached to the above official text states, “The fact that the supply of other finished products was confirmed as a result of the investigation by visiting and investigating the factory, etc., and the fact that the supply of other finished products was confirmed.” The document of this case, attached to the above official text, is written in two forms of demand materials.

On September 18, 2019, the public notice of “the notification of the plan for measures following the direct violation of production and the guidance on the attendance of the hearing” sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is indicated as follows.

Results: Business name of direct production confirmation (reproduction supply company, etc.) - Business name of the KCA - Business Name of the supply contract for manufacturing and supplying finished products of the main loan system 1) : E (Contract amount 2,514,600 * Contract Name: Purchase such as vehicle breaker * Business Name of the end-user institution: Incheon Business Office of the KCA * Sale Corporation * The submission of the opinion submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on September 26, 2019, stating that “The submission of the opinion submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on September 26, 2019, constitutes a violation of direct production verification through the sale of the main loan receiver, and is in charge of the national market at a fixed time.”

At the time of the hearing held on October 7, 2019, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff purchased and delivered the delivery of the instant goods from D” and that “the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not have any portions to vindicate, and recognized the violation.”

According to Article 6 (1) of the Act on Support of Development of Market Businesses, the Minister of SMEs and Startups may designate products directly produced and provided by small and medium enterprises and deemed necessary to expand markets as competing products among small and medium enterprises, and pursuant to Articles 7 (1) and 9 (1) of the above Act, small and medium enterprises are small and medium enterprises.