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

A. On November 7, 2013, the Defendant announced a public announcement of the service contract for “research and development of cooking equipment”, and the Plaintiff, a company engaged in “manufacturing, selling, etc. of industry, transportation machinery,” was awarded the bid price as an enterprise that reflected the lowest price by subscribing to the public announcement of the above.

B. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for “a contract amount of KRW 1, the contract period: From December 18, 2013 to November 30, 2016 for “research and development of identical cooking equipment” (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

C. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff developed a mobile cooking equipment, via a power support system test and evaluation, and obtained a judgment of appropriateness in military use on October 14, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the National Defense Standards (Standardization) was established regarding the above equipment, and was finally notified by the Defendant on December 2, 2016.

D. Since then, the Plaintiff requested the head of the project team affiliated with the Defendant, which is the department in charge of research and development of equipment in the process of research and development, to issue a certificate of research and development on the said project. On May 18, 2018, the head of the project team affiliated with the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request with the purport that “the issuance of a certificate of research and development falls under an administrative disposition, and the administrative disposition constitutes an administrative disposition, and is governed by the law at the time of the disposition, so the former Directive on the Development of Military Power (wholly amended by the Ministry of National Defense Directive No. 1949, Aug. 25, 2016) (wholly amended by the Ministry of National Defense Directive No. 1949, Aug. 25, 2016) is applicable to “research and development of equipment in the process of research and development” under Article 113-5(1).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 3 of the instant special terms of the instant service agreement, the written request for proposal is effective as part of the contract. The Ministry of National Defense No. 1388 of the Ministry of National Defense’s Business Instructions No. 1388 of the Ministry of National Defense, which was partially amended on February 3, 2012 (hereinafter “Regulation”) stated in the written request for proposal, was incorporated into the content of the instant service agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for issuing research and development confirmation to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 114-2 of the Directive No. 1388 of the Guidelines.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

No. 1388 cannot be deemed to have been incorporated into the content of the instant service agreement. Even if No. 1388 of the Directive is incorporated into the content of the instant service agreement, the instant service agreement is a government-invested research and development item, and thus, it is impossible to issue research and development confirmations pursuant to No. 1388 and No. 114-2 of the Directive.

3. Determination

A. According to the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to view that the parties have agreed to the entire provisions of subparagraph 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4-1 through 4 of Eul evidence Nos. 4, as a whole, and the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: (a) all of the provisions of Article 1388 of the Directive No. 1388; and (b) in particular, the part of Article 114-2 (Issuance of Research and Development Certificates) as the content of the instant service agreement.

1) Article 3(1)4 of the terms and conditions of the instant service contract provides that “written request for proposal” shall be effective as part of the contract, and the written request for proposal shall state Article 1388 of the Directive in the name of “3. Applicable Provisions and Guidelines”.

However, Article 3(3) of the contract special condition of the instant service agreement provides that “the matters not specified in all the contract documents related to the instant project, such as this special condition, shall be determined by the written agreement between the Republic of Korea and the counter-party to the contract.” However, the contract special condition states that “the obligation to carry out the project for developing the same type of cooking equipment specified in the contract (Article 6)” and “the obligation to coordinate, control, supervise, and inspect the matters necessary for the Plaintiff’s performance of the project (Article 6) and the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the payment after settlement of accounts (Article 15)” and there is no provision on “the obligation to issue the certificate of research and development to the Plaintiff,” which explicitly states that “the Defendant has the obligation to issue the certificate of research and development to the Plaintiff,” or there is no written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant related to the issuance of the certificate of research and development.”

Furthermore, Article 114-2 of the Directive provides that “(i) a research and development institution shall issue a research and development confirmation document without delay where the items to be developed are subject to the assessment of the suitability for military use.” (ii) a business management institution shall notify the developer, the required group, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the commodities source, and the country of the issuance of a certificate of confirmation of research and development so that it may impose an obligation on the Defendant, who is a contracting party, to the Defendant.” The written request for the proposal is only a document requiring the related company’s technical data, supply (research and development), plan, schedule, etc. to select a major institution for testing and evaluation or research and development of the objects to be purchased (see, e.g., attached Table 1388, 196, 196, 196, 1). Therefore, in light of the fact that the content directly regulating the rights and obligations of the parties to the State contract is not a matter to be written in the written request for the confirmation of research and development, it is difficult to view that the content of the instant service agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 138.

2) The Plaintiff asserts that since the Directive No. 1388 was incorporated into the content of the instant service agreement, it is unreasonable to apply the following grounds: (a) since the conclusion of the instant service agreement, all procedures related to the “research and development of equipment in the same type of cooking” project was conducted in accordance with Article 1388 of the Directive from the date of the instant service agreement to the “system development, test and evaluation, suitability review for military use, specification, and listing; and (b) only the “issuance of certificates of research and development” that can be the last

① Article 8 of the instant service contract provides for the procedure related to systematic development and project approval. Article 11 provides that “The development and operation test evaluation under Article 112 shall be conducted.” Article 12 provides for the aforementioned procedure as special conditions for contract after the conclusion of the instant service contract, such as the examination and delivery of matters related thereto. ② It is difficult to see that the aforementioned procedure is in a specific form of 1388,000, not Article 1388 of the instant service contract; ③ In light of the fact that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff during the process of the instant service contract, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant order was issued by the 164 (Evidence 12), 1707 (Evidence 13, 14, 15, 17, 20), 1825 (Evidence 18, 198, 46, 166, 166, 17, 196, 17, 196, etc. of the instant order for research and development guidelines.”

3) The Plaintiff believed that the company participating in the public announcement of the instant service contract was guaranteed the “issuance of a research and development confirmation certificate” in trust in the contents of the proposal request, and the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant service contract with “1 won” was due to the above trust. However, the Plaintiff asserts that it is improper to ex post facto implement the procedure for issuing research and development confirmation only on the ground that the instruction was amended.

① However, Ortex Co., Ltd., other than the Plaintiff, invested KRW 460,450,00, which is an enterprise participating in the bidding of the instant service contract, was invested in KRW 460,450,00, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff was deemed to have issued a certificate of research and development; ② Items 7 of “7.b. Administrative and other matters for reference” provide that “it shall be accurate for the information provided by the business management organization, but each proposing enterprise shall confirm its accuracy with the information provided by the business management organization,” and ② Section 8 of this case provides that “The right to interpret the contents of the documents officially presented to the business management organization shall be located in the business organization,” under Article 18 of the Research and Development Service Contract shall be deemed to have been confirmed by the Defendant at least 1, if the determination of whether to participate in the bidding of the instant service contract is to be issued, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant concluded a research and development service agreement with the Defendant prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract by 18-3 means of research and development guidelines.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that No. 1388 of the Directive was incorporated into the content of the instant service contract is without merit without any need to further examine.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum (Presiding Judge)