Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of manufacturing and selling clothing, bags, caps, and direct logistics with the head office set forth in B, Dongbcheon-si, and 9th floor C.

The Plaintiff participated in the “D” bid publicly notified by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant bid”), and was selected as a final successful bidder on February 17, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a laundry (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”) purchase agreement (hereinafter “instant purchase agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the following terms: (a) the laundry network of name names (the three parts number: 2411,50601); (b) volume 82,169; (c) price of goods; (d) KRW 535,232,010; and (e) the contract period from March 10, 2017 to May 31, 2018.

B. The term “qualification to participate in bidding” and “other matters” in the notice of the instant bidding indicate that “in the case of performing a contract that violates direct production conditions, such as production (manufacture) in Korea, the counter-party to the contract may be directly produced (manufacture) and may be at a disadvantage, such as termination of the contract,” and “in the case of performing a contract that violates directly production conditions, such as sub-production and supply of other products, it may be subject to a disposition to restrict the participation of unjust enterprisers pursuant to Article 76(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”), and the same purport is also stated in

C. On February 2019, the Defendant carried out the control over illegal supply of public procurement goods jointly with the National Tax Service. As a result, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was supplied with a domestic washing net from importer F for violating the obligation of direct production in the process of implementing the instant purchase contract and supplied it to the end-user institution.

Accordingly, the defendant's act is justified under Article 27 (1) 4 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter "State Contract Act") (i.e., "the person who has inflicted damage on the State in the course of bidding, successful bid, or conclusion and performance of contracts by fraudulent or other unlawful means") and 8 (b).