logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.05.23 2018구합75429
직접생산확인취소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise engaged in the business of manufacturing street lamps, and the Defendant is an institution delegated by the Minister of SMEs and Startups with the authority to cancel direct production and to hold hearings pursuant to Article 34(2) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Development Support and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. The Plaintiff was confirmed direct production from November 3, 2016 to November 2, 2018 by the Defendant with respect to street lamps (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

C. On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a procurement contract with the Public Procurement Service to supply street lamps produced by the Plaintiff to each end-user institution, and supplied street lampposts according to the said contract.

On May 29, 2018, the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service visited the Plaintiff’s workplace to examine whether direct production of street lamps is implemented, and confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff did not directly perform the essential fairness of themeper type (hereinafter “instant street lamps”) during the second half of 2015, purchased materials from C, and produced and supplied the instant street lamps, and requested the Defendant to revoke the confirmation of direct production on July 11, 2018.

E. On August 16, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the confirmation of direct production of all products verified by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 11(2)3, 11(3), and 11(5)3 of the Act on Support of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the instant broadcastlight’s essential process of production in a lower-level.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

arrow