1. The Defendant’s revocation of the emergency suspension disposition against the Plaintiff on March 23, 2018.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a patent application with respect to “D(E)” as of the date C, while engaging in the production and supply business, etc., and received the F date patent registration G (patent number G).

B. The Plaintiff’s patent development of “H” adopts the method of adding dypium (TiO2) to dypium (TiO2) among the combinations of raw materials.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant patent technology”) C.

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was designated as an excellent product pursuant to Article 9-2 of the Procurement Business Act (from August 31, 2012 to August 30, 2017) with respect to “B” produced by the Plaintiff using the instant patent technology from the Defendant, and around that time, entered into an excellent product contract with the Defendant for the said product (hereinafter “instant excellent product contract”) and supplied it to the procuring entity until 2017.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with a multiple supplier with respect to I produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant multiple suppliers contract”) and subsequently entered into a modified contract several times thereafter (the date of the final conclusion of the contract: October 16, 2017). The instant multiple suppliers contract are subject to the special conditions of the former multiple suppliers contract (Public Notice Notice No. 2017-73, Jul. 14, 2017; hereinafter “instant special conditions”).

E. The Plaintiff supplied I to an end-user institution in accordance with the instant contract with the multiple suppliers. On March 23, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that “the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied I without adding core raw materials different from the specifications (hereinafter “instant disposition”),” the Plaintiff made a disposition of suspension of emergency transactions in a national funeral shopping mall based on Article 22-3(1)1 of the instant special condition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 can be used.