1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant first proposed “B military domestic waste incineration facility private investment project” by C, D, and E, a joint-invested (tentative name) corporation, as a public-private partnership project under the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (hereinafter “Private Investment Act”), and publicly announced a third party’s proposal for B military domestic waste incineration facility (hereinafter “instant public-private partnership project”).

B. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of prior qualification examination report with the Korea Environment Corporation, which is entrusted by the Defendant with the receipt of the instant project, in accordance with the instant public notice.

C. On August 24, 2017, the Korea Environment Corporation rejected an application for registration of the Plaintiff’s prior qualification examination report on the following grounds.

5.1.1.1 of the content of the violation of the regulations related to the public notice of this case. The proposal for the project shall be submitted in accordance with the guidelines for preparation of the project proposal. - Various certificates shall be valid only for those issued after the public notice of this case.

spring. Provided, That if it is inevitable to submit a certificate issued before the date of public notice, the certificate shall be accompanied by the statement.

b. In the guidelines for preparing the project proposal set forth in Section 1, it is confirmed that the three certificates of the personal seal impression of the consortiums submitted by the consortiums in the same content by the third party is published before the date of the third party’s proposal (date of issuance of the three certificates of personal seal impression): H (State) May 15, 2017: I (State): June 22, 2017: the LJ: June 14, 2017. The above matters are the matters confirmed even with the thickness of the executives belonging to the E company on August 11, 2017 (Recognizing that the grounds for recognition are not attached to the reasons) / [Recognizing the absence of dispute], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s each statement (including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

(a)a Party;