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 small and medium enterprise that manufactures and sells asphalt concrete (hereinafter “ice concrete”), and the Defendant is an institution that is entrusted by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration with the determination of direct production, issuance of a certificate of direct production, revocation of direct production, hearing, etc. pursuant to Article 34(2) of the former Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “former Act on Support of Market Support”).

B. On December 2015, the Plaintiff was verified direct production with respect to the asphalt and renewable asphalt designated as competing products between and among small and medium entrepreneurs by the Defendant during the period of validity from December 17, 2015 to December 16, 2017.

C. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was an enterprise belonging to the Chungcheong East-dong Cooperative, and supplied the asphalts allocated in proportion to the shares of each member according to a contract for the purchase of the asphalts concluded with the Korea Government Procurement Service, to the site of A repair facility renovation and repair business (hereinafter “the site of this case”).

The Public Procurement Service conducted a fact-finding survey on the current status of the production and supply of asphalts, and demanded the Plaintiff to explain any discrepancy between the production and the shipment volume on December 17, 2016, and recognized that the Plaintiff supplied 25 tons of the asphalts produced by the relevant Siccom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Siccom”) at the site of the instant case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant goods”) 25 tons supplied to the site of this case. E

Accordingly, when the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to attend a hearing on non-performance of direct production, the Plaintiff asserted that only one of the harm was false and that the obligation of direct production was not violated. However, on June 30, 2017, the Defendant was confirmed directly by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 11(2)3, (3), and (5) of the former Act on Support of Market Development on the ground of the supply of subordinate production.