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 with the aim of manufacturing and installing an elevator, and was confirmed direct production from the Defendant (the name of the elevator for passengers, the elevator for cargo, and the dumnas) with the term of validity from October 8, 2015 to October 7, 2017.

B. Around 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a procurement contract with the Public Procurement Service (hereinafter “the instant procurement contract”) with the content that the contract amount is set at KRW 50,004,00,00 and supplies elevators for passenger use to the public health clinic (hereinafter “A public health clinic”).

C. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for elevator supply with a Hyundai Elevator Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Elevator”) with a contract amount of KRW 39,710,000 for the elevator supply, and the Plaintiff supplied the elevator from a modern elevator and installed it in a public health clinic A.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant elevator”). D. The elevator installed by the Plaintiff after being supplied with modern elevator.

On November 20, 2017, the Defendant revoked the confirmation of direct production against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 11(2)3 and (3) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Markets (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff supplied the instant elevator from a modern elevator without directly producing it, and installed it at a public health clinic A.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 8, 10, 11, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the grounds that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1. “Reproduction” as provided for in Article 11(2)3 of the Act on Support of Market Development, which is the basis of the instant disposition, is confined to those who are in a productive and technical subordinate relationship.