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

The plaintiff is a company that engages in the manufacturing and sales business of the connectionr, the manufacturing and sales business of the iron household, etc.

On August 30, 2013, the Defendant designated fixed-type connections produced by the Plaintiff (1070D, HS 1081D) as exemplary procurement commodities pursuant to Article 9-2 of the Procurement Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(Designation Number No. 201316). On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase contract with the Defendant for the purchase of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the proviso to Article 7(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, and Article 26(1)3(f) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with the content of supplying the fixed-type connections (1070D, HS 1081D) designated as the exemplary procurement commodities to each local government, which is an end-user institution.

On October 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the qualification for participation in bidding for three months pursuant to Article 27(1)1 of the State Contracts Act on the ground that the fixed-type connecting supplier supplied by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to an end-user institution pursuant to the instant contract is not an exemplary procurement commodities.

(hereinafter “instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 8, Eul’s evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate for the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

It is true that the plaintiff supplied the connection participants not designated as exemplary procurement goods to each local government that is a procuring entity.

However, each local government demanded that the plaintiff be more excellent in quality than the excellent procurement commodities, and with the plaintiff's consent, the contract of this case was modified into the delivery of the premium-oriented chairs rather than the excellent procurement commodities.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not supply the exemplary procurement goods to the demanding administrative agency.