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

A. On November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the contract amount of KRW 68,800,700, and the construction period from November 16, 2015 to December 15, 2015 (30 days) and the construction contract with the interest rate of KRW 0.1% for delay (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff completed the completion inspection on January 8, 2016, which was 24 days delayed than the agreed completion date.

B. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for disqualification from a private contract for three months from January 21, 2016 to April 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notification”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person determined to have difficulty in entering into a contract, such as imposition of damages for delay, for at least ten days, within the last three months based on the closing date for submitting written estimates,” as prescribed in Section 3, Section 1, paragraph (5), of Chapter 5 of the “Standards for Tender and Execution of Contracts by Local Governments” (Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 35, hereinafter “Rules”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, and is unlawful for the following reasons.

Although there is no basis for restrictions on qualifications for participation in negotiated contracts under relevant statutes, such as the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”), the Defendant notified this case based on the established rules of the administrative agency, which are merely the internal regulations of the administrative agency.

B. In light of the fact that the delay of the completion of construction by the Plaintiff is due to the fact that the work was not performed 12 times or 30 days during the construction period, the instant notification was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing the scope of discretion.

C. There is procedural defect in the notice of this case without holding the hearing procedure.

3. The defendant.