A. On October 27, 2016, a C institution publicly announced an electronic bid for the purchase of 10 Class 210 mountain equipment to be supplied to D (hereinafter “instant mountain equipment”). The Plaintiff participated in the said bid amounting to KRW 41,737,840, and was selected as a successful bidder on November 3, 2016.

B. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of mountain equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant by setting the contract amount of KRW 35,686,00 and the delivery date of the instant mountain equipment to be supplied to D as 30 days from the date of the contract. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant, including the intermediate payment of KRW 12,00,000 on the date of the contract deposit, and the intermediate payment of KRW 12,00,000 on December 5, 2016.

C. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant mountain equipment amounting to KRW 41,737,840,00 for the said mountain equipment, and entered into a contract for the final supply of goods on December 14, 2016. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued a performance guarantee insurance policy for KRW 4,173,790 for the contract deposit from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

However, the Defendant failed to supply the Plaintiff with the instant mountain equipment by the due date on the wind that part of the goods that the Defendant intended to import from the overseas trading office were stolen at the overseas airport. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to supply the instant mountain equipment D by the due date of the supply thereof.

On January 11, 2017, the C institution notified the Plaintiff of measures to revert to the National Treasury the contract deposit of KRW 4,173,790 upon termination of the contract and the contract deposit of KRW 4,173,790, and received KRW 4,173,790 from E. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 4,173,790 to E.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, and 13, and the result of the inquiry and reply to the agency C by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the previous defense on the merits did not cause damage to the Plaintiff either intentionally or by negligence, and thus, the Defendant is disqualified.