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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a quasi-governmental institution established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act for the purpose of developing, developing, transmitting, and transforming electric resources and its related business.

B. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for “C Corporation” with the Defendant, and the main contents are as follows:

2. Contract name: D Corporation

3. Area in charge: The area under the jurisdiction of the headquarters in charge of subdivision in the former North Korea; the area under the jurisdiction of the headquarters in charge of subdivision in the area: F Myeon, G Myeon, H Myeon, I Dong, J Myeon, K Myeon, Ldong, M Dong, N Dong, Pdong, Pdong, Qdong, Rdong, Sdong, Tdong, Udong, Vdong, Wdong, Xdong, Ydong, Ydong, Zdong.

4. Contract unit cost: 25,084,375 won;

5. Estimated contract amount: 9,617,747,773 won; the contract period: January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 (730 days);

C. On November 2018, the Defendant imposed a restriction on the Plaintiff’s participation in bidding for six months on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided a bribe of KRW 56 million for budgetary allocation and construction convenience.” On November 9, 2018, the Defendant issued a restriction on participation in bidding for one year (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”), on April 10, 2019, on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided a bribe of KRW 176 million for budgetary allocation and construction convenience” (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”) for the following reasons: (a) the Gwangju District Court rendered a restriction on participation in bidding for one year (the previous period of six months was changed to one year) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff failed to be notified of the specific grounds for the instant disposition, such as the offering of a bribe, the date and place of the offering, and whether the Plaintiff and the offering of a bribe are related to the Plaintiff and the offering of a bribe. Therefore, the instant disposition is procedurally unlawful.

B. AA which has given a bribe to Defendant employees.