1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at the development, power generation, transmission, transformation, and related business of electric power resources under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act. The Defendant is a quasi-governmental institution established for the purpose of the development, power generation, transformation, and business related thereto.

B. On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff participated in the tender according to the Defendant’s tender notice, and entered into a purchase agreement with the Defendant on December 27, 2017, stipulating the contract amount of KRW 87,890,165, and the delivery deadline as of January 26, 2018.

C. On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff did not supply the said diagnosis equipment by the delivery deadline. On the grounds that the Defendant did not perform the contract without justifiable grounds, the Defendant issued a disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers for whom the Plaintiff’s qualification to participate in the contract for three months is limited pursuant to Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”), Article 15 of the Rules on Contracts to Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions, Article 76(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), Article 76(2)16(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not supply the above diagnosis equipment by the delivery deadline is because the defendant expected the plaintiff's successful bid of C, an individual company Eul operated by B, such as not providing the plaintiff with information necessary for the manufacture of diagnosis equipment, and led the plaintiff to the plaintiff's non-performance of contract.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff's failure to implement the contract is justified.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) Article 39 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions and public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions.