January 12, 2017

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,486,252,279 won and 12,389,959,251 won among them with 6% interest per annum from August 7, 2015 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(a) Tender for construction and conclusion of a contract therefor;

1) On December 2012, the Plaintiff bid on the “construction of accommodation facilities for the head of Pyeongtaek-si and commander” (hereinafter “instant construction”) which is part of the project for relocation facilities of the military base in Korea, implemented in Pyeongtaek-si (location omitted).

2) The Ulsan Construction Co., Ltd., Gyeongnam Co., Ltd., Gyeongnam Co., Ltd., Promotion Company, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Gohap Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) constituted a joint supply and demand organization (hereinafter referred to as “instant joint supply and demand organization”) with the representative of Ulsan Construction Co., Ltd., and participated in the said bidding and was awarded the contract for the instant construction (However, the landscaping part of the instant construction is to be constructed by means of

3) On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the instant joint contractors, setting the total contract amount of KRW 85,214,027,00,00 for the instant construction works, KRW 34,085,610,80 for contract deposit, and the construction period from February 27, 2014 to January 9, 2016.

4) The main contents of the general conditions of the construction contract, joint supply and demand agreement, joint contract management guidelines, and the guidelines for government tendering and contract execution included in the contents of the instant contract are as follows.

(1) If the other party to a contract fails to perform his/her contractual obligations without any justifiable ground, the contract bond shall be reverted to the plaintiff. (1) If the other party to the contract falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the plaintiff may cancel or terminate the contract wholly or partially by the due date for the performance of the contract concerned. (2) If the other party to the contract falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the members of the joint supply and demand organization shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the contract to the ordering party. (3) If it is deemed that there is no possibility of completing the construction by the due date for any cause attributable to the other party to the contract, the joint supply and demand organization shall meet the requirements for the separate supply and demand agreement to be fulfilled. (4) The ratio of investment by members of the joint supply and demand organization shall be 38% or more:

(b) Conclusion of contract performance guarantee contracts;

1) On February 27, 2014, the members of the instant joint contractors concluded a contract for performance guarantee (hereinafter “each of the instant joint contractors”) between the Defendant and the Defendant respectively as indicated in the following table, with a view to fulfilling the obligation to pay the performance bond under the instant contract, and the performance guarantee contract between February 27, 2014 to January 9, 2016 (hereinafter “each of the instant joint contractors”) signed a contract for performance guarantee (hereinafter “each of the instant joint contractors”); and submitted each of the instant joint contractors’ respective performance guarantee contracts to the Plaintiff, respectively.

F. 12,389,959,251 soil/electric/electric/fire-fighting/communication 21,480,454,878 landscaping 3: 12,063,97,692 earth/electric/fire-fighting/communication 4,156,96,527 soil/electric/fire-fighting/communication 5201,877 5201,873,540 telecommunications 650,702, 296,731,201,027731, 201,0278, 807 fire-fighting/communication 34,685,610,803

2) The main contents of the Defendant’s performance bond clause included in each of the instant guarantee contracts (hereinafter “instant performance bond clause”) are as follows.

Article 1 (Liability of Guarantee) (1) of the Work Performance Guarantee Clause included in the main text of this Guarantee Agreement (hereinafter “Guarantee Contract”) where a contractor fails to perform the obligation under the contract for construction work (hereinafter “main contract”) on the front of the contract (hereinafter “Guarantee Claim”) and the other party (hereinafter “Guarantee Creditor”) shall perform the contractual obligation instead of the other party, or pay the relevant Guarantee Deposit (hereinafter “Guarantee Claim”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Guarantee Contract. Article 3 (Method of Performance of Guarantee Obligations) (1) The defendant designates a third party (hereinafter “Guarantee Execution Company”) and allows the third party to perform the Guarantee Claim (hereinafter “Performance of Guarantee Contract”) where a cause attributable to the obligor occurs. (2) If the defendant is unable to perform the Guarantee Work under paragraph (1), he shall pay the Guarantee Claim within the scope of the guaranteed obligation stated in this Guarantee Contract, and if he fails to perform the Guarantee Claim under the main contract or other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, he may, within the scope of the period of time for the performance of the Guarantee Claim, make it inevitable for the defendant to perform the Guarantee Claim within the remaining period of time limit.

(c) Withdrawal and change contract of Ulsan Construction;

1) On October 22, 2014, under the process of the instant construction, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure on October 22, 2014.

2) On November 24, 2014, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, a joint manager of Ulsan Construction, notified the Plaintiff on November 24, 2014 that the instant contract is terminated, which is an executory contract by both parties, pursuant to Article 119(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

3) On November 28, 2014, the instant joint contractor withdrawn from the instant joint contractor with the Plaintiff’s approval, and changed the ratio of investment into 60% of the company (representative), the promotion company’s 24%, and the combined construction 16% of the company (i.e., Ulsan Construction’s implementation method).

4) On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a modified contract with the instant joint contractors, reflecting the change in the said joint contractors’ investment ratio, and notified the Defendant of the change on December 5, 2014 and December 12, 2014.

D. Termination of the instant contract and claim for the payment of security deposit

1) After that, in the course of the instant construction work, Gyeongnam Company was also decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on April 7, 2015, Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10070. Nonparty 3 notified the Plaintiff on May 19, 2015 that “the instant contract will be terminated, which is an executory contract under Article 119(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.”

2) The Plaintiff urged the promotion company, the remaining members of the joint supply and demand company of this case, and the construction company, the chemical construction company, and the comprehensive construction company, other than the remaining joint supply and demand company of this case. However, the promotion company, and the comprehensive construction company,

3) On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The instant contract is terminated pursuant to Article 44(1) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract incorporated into the instant contract,” and, on the same day, requested the Defendant to perform the guaranteed obligation under each of the instant contract.

4) However, on September 2, 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 21,695,651,5520,000,00,000, which is the remainder of the deposit, except for KRW 12,389,959,959,251,51,552, which is the remainder of the deposit under the instant guarantee agreement, to the effect that “the construction of Ulsan had already withdrawn from the joint supply and purchase entity of this case before the occurrence of the occurrence of the occurrence of the guarantee accident stipulated in each of the instant guarantee agreements by the joint supply and purchase entity of this case due to its failure to perform the instant contract.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 15, Gap evidence 18, 19, 20 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for security deposit under the first guarantee contract of this case

A. Judgment on the main argument

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Even if each of the members of the instant joint ventures individually concluded each of the instant joint ventures with the Defendant according to their respective investment rates, the joint ventures in the form of joint performance fall under the Civil Act and are directly parties to the instant contract, and the members are obligated to jointly perform the contractual obligations of the joint ventures. Since the Defendant was well aware of such circumstances at the time of the conclusion of each of the above joint ventures, each of the instant joint ventures shall be deemed to have concluded each of the members granted the power to execute the contract for the instant joint ventures.

Therefore, the validity of each guarantee contract of this case is effective on the joint contractors of this case, and it is not possible to guarantee each member of the joint contractors of this case's performance of obligations. Thus, even if the Ulsan Construction was unable to perform its obligations under the contract of this case after the withdrawal from the joint contractors of this case, the defendant shall pay all the guaranteed amount of each guarantee contract of this case including the deposit of the first guarantee contract of this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 12,389,959,251 won to the plaintiff of the non-paid guarantee contract of the first guarantee contract of this case.

2) Relevant legal principles

As a joint venture in the form of a joint venture basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, the claims held against a contractor due to the execution of a construction work by a joint venture shall, in principle, be reverted to the members of a joint venture. Thus, barring any special circumstance, one of the members may not claim payment from a subcontractor at his own discretion in proportion to the shares of the subcontractor. However, as the joint venture in the form of a joint venture and a subcontractor agree to allow individual members who are not a joint venture in relation to claims arising from a contract for construction work to acquire rights to a subcontractor in accordance with their share ratio, the claims held against a subcontractor in relation to a contract for construction work may be attributed to each member of a joint venture in proportion to their share ratio. Such agreement may be made explicitly and explicitly (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da105406, May 17, 2012). Likewise, even if the members of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture are jointly liable for the performance of their obligations under the contract for construction work, it is reasonable to deem that they are not separately liable for each member's joint venture.

3) Determination

The above facts are examined in light of the above legal principles. According to Article 10 of the Guidelines for the Management of Joint Contract, which is included in the contents of the contract of this case, the plaintiff can have the members of the joint venture of this case pay the contract of this case in installments in accordance with their respective investment rates. Accordingly, the plaintiff seems to have made the members of the joint venture of this case individually submit to the plaintiff a guarantee certificate concerning the amount equivalent to their respective investment rates out of the contract deposit of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the contract of joint venture of this case and the joint venture of this case concluded an implied agreement for the members of the joint venture of this case to individually pay the contract deposit corresponding to their respective investment rates. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the contract of joint venture of this case can be concluded in a separate agreement for the performance of the contract of this case to have the members of the joint venture of this case pay the divided payment according to their respective investment rates for the performance of the contract of this case to the members of each joint venture of this case as the representative of each joint venture of this case or all of all of the joint venture of this case (the plaintiff's of this case's of this case).

Meanwhile, according to Article 8 (1) of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction Works, if the other party to the contract fails to perform contractual obligations, the contract performance bond shall belong to the plaintiff. Such contract performance bond shall be deemed to be liquidated damages incurred to the plaintiff who is the contractor due to the failure of the joint contractor, who is the contractor, to perform the contractual obligations under the contract for construction works. Accordingly, the defendant shall guarantee individual damages liability equivalent to the contract performance bond corresponding to the ratio of each member of the joint contractor.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, on the premise that the joint contractor of this case is a party to each guarantee contract of this case, the first party's primary argument is without merit without any need to examine further.

B. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

If it is interpreted that the first guarantee contract of this case guarantees the individual obligation of Ulsan Construction, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the deposit under the first guarantee contract of this case for the following reasons.

① Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case, the effect of the instant contract was suspended until the fulfillment of the condition of suspension that “where a member of the instant contracting group fails to perform the instant contract normally, the remaining members of the instant contracting group shall not perform the instant contract” (hereinafter referred to as “the Chapter I”), by means of having been ordered to commence rehabilitation procedures on October 22, 2014 and having expressed his/her intent to waive the instant construction to the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff, as a matter of course, does not automatically exempt the Plaintiff from the liability to perform the instant construction works under the instant contract for Ulsan Construction, on the ground that the Plaintiff approved the withdrawal of the instant joint supply and demand contractor due to the waiver of the construction works, and concluded a new contract by allocating the investment ratio of Ulsan Construction among the members (hereinafter referred to as “the Chapter 2”).

③ If Ulsan Construction becomes exempt from its liability under the instant contract by withdrawing from a joint contractor under the instant contract, the status of the contractor for Ulsan Construction under the first guarantee contract of the instant case shall be deemed to have been taken over to the remaining members who acquired shares in the contract of the instant case. The Defendant, who guaranteed the normal progress of construction works through the remaining members, may be deemed to have given the express or implied consent thereto, or the succession of the status of the contractor as above under Article 4(2) of the terms and conditions of the instant case shall be deemed to have been naturally scheduled under the guarantee contract (hereinafter “section 3”).

④ On December 5, 2014 and December 12, 2014, the Defendant did not raise any objection to the conclusion of a modified contract that reflects the change of equity shares arising from the withdrawal of the instant joint supply and demand agreement from the Plaintiff. Although the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to pay the full amount of the deposit, including the deposit, to the claim for the payment of the deposit under each of the instant joint purchase and demand agreement, the refusal of the payment of the deposit thereafter goes against the good faith and the good faith and the good faith doctrine (hereinafter “Chapter IV”).

2) Determination as to the first proposal

A) In a contract for performance guarantee, a guarantee accident refers to an uncertain accident that specifies the guarantor’s obligation to pay the contract performance guarantee under a contract for performance guarantee. As such, what the guarantee accident is specific ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contractual terms included in the contract under an agreement between the parties and the details of the principal contract cited in the said contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da25177, Mar. 24, 2000; 2004Da16976, Apr. 28, 2006).

B) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. In full view of the following circumstances, the aforementioned basic facts together with the purport of the entire pleadings, the guarantee accident stipulated in each of the instant guarantee agreements shall be deemed to mean “the case where all members of the instant joint contractors become unable to perform their obligations under the instant contract.”

① In the contract for joint performance method, such as the instant contract, the joint contractors are jointly and severally liable for the performance of construction works, unlike the method of sharing the portion to be executed by each member of the joint contractors by specifying the portion to be executed by each member of the joint contractors. As such, even if some members waive the construction works, if the remaining members are able to perform the construction works, the contractor cannot be deemed to have fulfilled

(2) In a contract for joint performance method, the joint and several liability for the obligation of the members of the joint and several contractors to perform the construction works shall not be deemed a divided liability, on the ground that each member of the joint and several contractors has agreed to bear the contract performance

③ In the instant contract, there is no provision stipulating that the contract performance guarantee equivalent to the percentage of the shares of certain constituent members may be reverted to the Plaintiff solely on the waiver or withdrawal of the construction works.

④ Notwithstanding Article 50(1) of the standards for the execution of government bids and contracts included in the contract of this case and Article 4(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case, a joint contract concluded by a joint performance method may be demanded to discharge the guaranteed obligation only when the remaining members fail to perform the contract, even if some of the members of the joint supply and demand organization are unable to perform the contract due to default, etc.

C) However, according to the above basic facts, the Ulsan Construction, upon receiving a decision on October 22, 2014 on the commencement of rehabilitation procedures and notifying the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract, shall be deemed to have waived the execution of the instant construction by notifying the Plaintiff. However, since the instant joint supply and demand company withdraws from the instant joint supply and demand company with the Plaintiff’s approval and performs the instant construction work normally by changing the percentage of the remaining members’ investment, it cannot be deemed that the instant joint supply and demand company incurred a guarantee accident as stipulated in the instant joint supply and demand agreement due to the waiver of the said construction work.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit to further examine.

3) Determination on the second proposal

As seen earlier, the instant joint venture is a joint venture with the nature of the partnership under the Civil Act, and the members of the joint venture shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of their obligations under the contract of this case. However, according to the above basic facts, Ulsan Construction withdrawn from the instant joint venture with the Plaintiff’s approval, and accordingly, Ulsan Construction would no longer be in the status of the members of the instant joint venture with the alteration of the ratio of the investment of the joint venture to 60% of the Vietnam Enterprise, the promotion enterprise, 24% of the promotion enterprise, and 16% of the total construction.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit on the premise that it continues to be liable for the instant contract even after the withdrawal from the joint supply and demand organization of this case.

4) Determination as to the third proposal

As seen earlier, even in a contract for joint performance, it is possible for a joint supply and demand company to pay a divided debt for the performance of contractual obligations in accordance with a separate agreement with the Plaintiff. Each member of the joint supply and demand company of this case respectively concluded each of the instant contracts with the Defendant for the performance of the obligation to pay the contract deposit according to the respective investment ratio, which is a divided debt, according to a separate agreement with the Plaintiff. Therefore, barring any separate agreement, in a case where a certain member of the joint supply and demand company of this case withdraws from the joint supply and demand company of this case solely on the ground that each of the instant contracts is a guarantee for the performance of joint performance, it is difficult to view that the contractual status of the joint supply and demand company of this case

The plaintiff asserts that, as in the case of this case, it is obvious that if the representative of a joint contractor concludes a single guarantee contract on behalf of the joint contractor, it would be possible to claim the full amount of the contract deposit, but it would not be possible to exercise the right to claim the deposit under the guarantee contract of the withdrawing partner because it is an incidental circumstance that the contract deposit was paid in installments according to the ratio of the partner's investment.

However, the above results are attributable to the Plaintiff’s agreement to pay the contract deposit in installments according to its respective shares of each member while entering into a contract for joint performance method, and it cannot be deemed a result due to an unexpected circumstance where the Plaintiff could not control the Plaintiff. In addition, if a member of a joint supply and demand company withdraws from the contract, the Plaintiff is able to secure the performance of the contract equivalent to the ratio of the withdrawing member’s investment by being submitted a contract guarantee in accordance with the changed shares of the remaining members (if the remaining members at the time of withdrawal from the contract are unable to perform the construction by refusing to submit a new contract guarantee, etc., it shall be possible for the Plaintiff to seek the payment of the total deposit deposit including the deposit for the first guarantee contract of this case immediately since the occurrence of the guarantee accident stipulated in each contract for each of the instant joint supply and demand parties at the time of withdrawal from the contract.)

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

5) Determination as to Section 4

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have an obligation to raise an objection against the Plaintiff regarding the notification of the conclusion of the modified contract following the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from Ulsan Construction; (b) the Defendant expressed his/her intent to pay the full amount of the deposit, including the deposit money under each of the instant guarantee contracts, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the deposit under each of the instant guarantee contracts, even though the Defendant expressed his/her intent to pay the entire amount of the deposit including the deposit money under each of the instant guarantee contracts; and (c) the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any trust worth protecting the Plaintiff, solely on the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff in relation to the assertion in this part, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s refusal to perform the obligation to pay the deposit under the first guarantee contract of this case is a exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle or the principle

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

6) Sub-decisions

After all, the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the claim for damages for delay due to delay in the payment of deposit

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, on June 5, 2015, notified the Defendant of the occurrence of a guarantee accident under the respective guarantee agreement, and filed a claim for the performance of the guaranteed obligation on June 5, 2015. According to Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions of this case, the Defendant shall commence the performance of the guaranteed obligation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a claim for the performance of the guaranteed obligation from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff extended the period of commencement of the performance of the guaranteed obligation by August 6, 2015 upon the Defendant’s request. However, on September 2, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 21,695,651,52 to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2015. As such, the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff for delay damages calculated annually from August 7, 2015 to September 2, 2015 to September 2, 2015 x KRW 96,396,365,265,265,56565.

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant, upon consultation with the Plaintiff on the implementation plan, etc. for the guaranteed obligation, promptly selected the guaranteed performance company and performed the guaranteed work, and paid the bond when the Defendant is unable to perform the guaranteed work due to failure to observe the agreement. Accordingly, although the Defendant conducted the bidding procedure to select the guaranteed performance company pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant’s immediately paid the bond to the Plaintiff as it was impossible to perform the guaranteed work due to failure to comply with the agreement, and thus, the Defendant’

B. Determination

1) Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions of the instant case provides, “The Defendant shall commence the performance of the guaranteed obligation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a written claim for the performance of the guaranteed obligation by the guaranty creditor: Provided, That the Defendant may not commence the performance of the guaranteed obligation within this period due to a delay in the performance test, etc., or where there exist special reasons for the construction, the guaranty creditor may apply for extension of the period, and the guaranty creditor shall grant permission if such special reasons exist.” The Plaintiff shall be notified on May 19, 2015 that the contract of the instant case would be terminated upon the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure by the Gyeongnam Company. The Plaintiff shall be notified to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2015, as the promotion company which is the remaining member of the joint supply and demand company of the instant case, and the construction of the chemical, upon the completion of the instant construction, requested the Defendant on June 5, 2015, the Defendant extended the payment period to the Plaintiff from the total guarantee deposit of each of the instant case to September 2, 216, 25, 2015.

2) On the other hand, Article 3(1) of the Clause of this case provides that "The defendant shall, in principle, designate and execute a guaranteed performance company if a guaranteed accident has occurred due to a cause attributable to the debtor, and Paragraph (2) of this case provides that "I, if the partnership is unable to execute the guaranteed construction under Paragraph (1), do do perform the guaranteed obligation with the payment of the pertinent guaranteed money under the conditions as prescribed by the State Contract or the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes within the scope of the guaranteed amount stated in the letter of guarantee." It can be acknowledged as follows in light of the above basic facts: evidence No. 11-3, No. 11-2, No. 12-2, No. 1, No. 2-2, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 4-2, No. 3-2, No. 5-1, No. 10, No. 15-1, and No. 2

① On July 10, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of “to select a surety within the scope of each guarantee agreement of this case except for the instant guarantee agreement, and to perform the guaranteed obligation if the selection of a surety is not possible.”

② Since then, on July 31, 2015, the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff regarding the method of selecting the guaranteed performance company, etc. on several occasions, and on July 31, 2015, the Defendant agreed to promptly select the guaranteed performance company through competitive bidding, but if the Defendant is unable to perform the guaranteed work due to reasons such as failure, etc., the Defendant paid the security deposit and to perform the guaranteed obligation

③ In order to select a surety performance company on August 3, 2015, the Defendant issued an emergency tender notice by setting the bidding period from August 3, 2015 to the 11th day of the same month, but did not constitute a single tender. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant issued an emergency tender notice by setting the re-tender period from August 20, 2015 to the 26th day of the same month, but did not lead to the tender without any bid participants.

④ On August 27, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that it is difficult to select a guarantee performance company, and that the Plaintiff submitted documents related to the payment of the deposit necessary for the payment of the deposit and requested the submission of the said documents. On the same day, the Plaintiff again notified the Defendant that the full amount of the deposit under each of the instant guarantee contracts would be paid.

According to the above facts, while the defendant is conducting a tendering procedure for guarantee construction through a guarantee implementing company, there is a justifiable reason to postpone the payment of the security deposit in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Terms and Conditions of this case and the agreement of this case, and as seen earlier, there is a dispute as to the scope of payment of the security deposit under each guarantee agreement of this case. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the designation of a guarantee implementing company under the above tendering procedure is final and conclusive, and it is difficult to view that the payment of the security deposit was delayed due to a reason attributable to the defendant on September 2, 2015, which is six (4 business days) days from August 27, 2015 when the plaintiff again requested the payment of the security deposit. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum Weather (Presiding Judge)