The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant's revocation of direct production against the plaintiff as of October 17, 2014.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the instant case is the case seeking revocation of the Defendant’s revocation of direct production verification on the ground that the Plaintiff was verified directly from the Defendant based on the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter “Market Support Act”) but failed to meet the direct production verification criteria thereafter, and that the Defendant’s revocation of direct production verification against the Plaintiff does not meet the disposal requirements or is unlawful against the principle of trust protection or the principle of proportionality

The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for the confirmation of direct production because the Plaintiff did not hold a part of production facilities after the fact that it failed to meet the criteria for confirmation of direct production, the Defendant’s revocation satisfies the requirements for disposition, and that the revocation of direct production does not go against the principle of trust protection, and that the principle of proportionality is not applicable as a binding act. The Plaintiff

[Attachment of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes]

B. On the premise, 【Evidence 【A’1-1, 2, A2, A2, 3, 4, 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings. (i) The Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise for the purpose of outdoor advertising installation business. Based on Article 34(2) of the Act on Support for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and Article 27(1)2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Defendant is an institution entrusted with the authority to verify whether a small and medium enterprise was directly produced by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Act

The Defendant confirmed direct production on May 26, 2014, based on Article 9(4) of the Act on Support of Development of Market Organizations, confirmed direct production by setting the term of validity of the Plaintiff’s guide (mark) products from May 27, 2014 to May 26, 2016.

⑶ 피고의 직접생산 확인 취소처분 ㈎ 피고는 2014. 8. 7....