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, a corporation established for the purpose of providing and selling computer system services, has supplied and managed computer equipment to the Korean Intellectual Property Office through a service contract between the Defendant and the Defendant.

B. On December 12, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of restricting the restriction on the restriction on the participation of the Plaintiff from the 20th to March 19, 201, based on Article 27(1) of the former Act to which the State was a Party (amended by Act No. 11547, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”); Article 76(1)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 76(1) and (4) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 161, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) against the Plaintiff based on Article 12(c) of the same Act.

(See Evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant's procedural defect is the plaintiff's service contract related to the offering of bribe in B's offering of bribe by notifying the plaintiff prior to the disposition of this case before the disposition of this case to the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1].

(B) the same list [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] (hereinafter referred to as “Attachment 2]] is specified as indicated.

(2) The instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that there was a procedural defect in violation of Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, since the service contract Nos. 1 through 4 was a contract that was not specified at the time of the hearing and was not given prior notice or an opportunity to present opinions to the Plaintiff. (2) The absence of the grounds for disposition is against C who is an employee of the Plaintiff, who is a public official of the Korean Intellectual Property Office.