채무부존재확인
1. As to the goods contract (contract No. B) concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a C contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant through the Seoul Regional Government Procurement Service (hereinafter “instant public notice of tender”) with a company engaging in the manufacturing, sale, and construction business of lighting fixtures and electrical equipment, and with the period of contract fixed from May 31, 2016 to May 30, 2019 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff received a contract bond of KRW 110,000,000 as guaranteed amount from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and submitted it to the Gyeongnam Local Government Procurement Service, instead of paying the instant contract bond.
C. From the conclusion of the instant contract to May 2017, the Plaintiff supplied road lighting equipment equivalent to KRW 110,050,000 (the maximum supply demand amount of KRW 42,900,000 per time, and the minimum supply demand amount of KRW 3,150,000 per time) at the time of 10,050,00 at the request of the Gyeongnam Local Government Procurement Service, a procuring entity, on a total of seven occasions.
On March 7, 2017, the Gyeong-nam Regional Government Procurement Service requested the Plaintiff to supply road lighting equipment equivalent to KRW 31,450,000 to the Plaintiff on March 6, 2018, at the same time as the time limit for the supply of the road lighting equipment, which is equivalent to KRW 31,450,00,00, at the same time as an end-user institution, and thereafter, the Gyeong-nam Regional Government Government Procurement Service requested the Plaintiff to change the time limit for the supply of the road lighting equipment
However, even though the term of validity of a direct production certificate concerning road lighting equipment that the Plaintiff agreed to deliver to the Defendant (from February 22, 2016 to March 21, 2018) was over, the Plaintiff closed its business on July 2018 without obtaining a re-issuance of a certificate, and did not provide the above road lighting equipment that requested the delivery of a macro-market.
E. On March 15, 2019, the Gyeongnam Local Government Procurement Service stated that the Plaintiff did not perform the contract without justifiable grounds due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty to maintain participation in bidding and the closure of business, despite the expiration of the term of validity of the direct production verification certificate.