2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. (1) On June 29, 2016, the Defendant announced the instant tender. In the foregoing announcement, the Defendant decided that the successful bidder was a person whose lowest price is below the estimated price according to the detailed criteria for qualification examination of the Defendant’s facility construction work and whose performance capability was at least 95 points in general average reputation. (2) On July 13, 2016, the first priority order, which was reflected in the lowest price as a result of opening on July 13, 2016, was a joint contractor consisting of the Defendant’s Intervenor, the new soil construction company, and the second joint contractors consisting of the Plaintiffs.

3) On July 19, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written examination of qualification from the Defendant’s Intervenor. However, the Defendant’s objection to the execution performance of the Defendant’s Intervenor and the request for cooperation due to the receipt of internal investigation accidents from the Province Police Agency of Jeollabuk-do reserved the evaluation of qualification documents. 4) Meanwhile, the Defendant submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation of the construction performance records (issuance of the Korea Construction Association) to the effect that the Defendant had a construction performance record of KRW 22,907,00,000 for five years. The Defendant requested the Korea Construction Association on July 22, 2016 to verify the authenticity of the construction performance certificate, and the Korea Construction Association issued to the Defendant on August 2, 2016. The Korea Construction Association confirmed that the construction performance record of the construction work was true and recognized as a basis for the certificate of the construction performance records issued by the Korea Overseas Construction Association.

5) The Governor of the Jeollabuk-do Provincial Police Agency: (a) was killed on charges of violating the Overseas Construction Promotion Act to the Defendant, but the Intervenor joining the Defendant was Russia Port (B).

(1) On August 3, 2016, this case’s overseas works were confirmed to have been closed on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant engaged in the instant overseas works [this case’s overseas works].

6. The defendant is the Jeonju District Court against the defendant by Taeju Construction Co., Ltd.