The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The abbreviation of this court’s additional judgment is based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

The plaintiff asserted in this court that "the plaintiff has justifiable grounds for not being able to purchase or manufacture and deliver the parts of this case, and thus, the grounds for devolving the contract bond of this case are not recognized, and even if the contract bond should be reverted to the National Treasury on the grounds that there are no justifiable grounds, the ratio of the contract bond to be reverted to the National Treasury should be drastically reduced considering the scale of the transaction and the circumstances leading up

The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court does not differ from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. While examining all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the additional evidence submitted in this court (Evidence A to 26), the plaintiff's assertion that there is a justifiable reason for the non-performance of the contract, and the judgment of the first instance court that the plaintiff should revert 548,817,325 won to the National Treasury out of the contract bond of this case is reasonable and reasonable. In particular, the plaintiff argues that the share of the contract bond of this case in the first instance court is excessive, but without sufficiently examining the possibility of the performance of the contract, the plaintiff's participation in the bidding became a fundamental cause for the rescission of the contract of this case. The defendant was placed in a situation where the contract of this case falling under the public procurement contract of this case was cancelled and the new contract should be concluded for more than 15 months, and the public interest of this case is not small.