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 non-profit corporation established for the purpose of supporting the low-credit and low-income group’s small business start-up and operation funds, and is providing loans and operating expenses from C institutions in accordance with D support contracts concluded with C institutions established pursuant to the Act on the Support of the Financial Life of ordinary people, and carries out the business of providing low-credit and low-income groups with loans at low interest.

B. On July 18, 2017, the president of the Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency applied for the certification of a social enterprise under the Social Enterprise Promotion Act to the Defendant. However, on September 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-certification of a social enterprise (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s performance of social services and lack of the grounds for decision-making structure in which various interested parties participate.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, 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. The Defendant, who satisfies the requirements for social enterprises and deviates from and abused discretionary power, determined that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for certification of social enterprises prescribed by the Social Enterprise Promotion Act on the ground that “the provision of social services is inappropriate and lack of the grounds for decision-making structure in which various interested parties participate,” but the Plaintiff mainly intended to provide social services to vulnerable groups prescribed by the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, and the Plaintiff’s 95% of beneficiaries who received social services from the Plaintiff exceeds 30% as prescribed by Article 9(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act. Therefore, the requirements for the performance of social services under Article 8(1)3 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act are satisfied.

In addition, the plaintiff is a service beneficiary, employee, etc.