1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2007 to 2013, the Plaintiff entered into 12 contracts, such as K-200 criminal supply contracts, and fulfilled the contract.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance confirmed that the test results of some parts submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract (hereinafter referred to as the “test results of this case”) were forged or altered as a result of conducting a survey for transfer of the test results of a certified testing institution related to military supply.

(4) The 25 results of the Plaintiff’s collaborative company were forged and altered. (C)

On August 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 27(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party on the ground of “Alteration of Documents Relating to Contracts and Submission of False Documents”; (b) Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 76 [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] subparagraph 10(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to impose sanctions against unjust enterprisers for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the assertion that Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act cannot be a ground for sanctions, 1) the instant disposition would be contrary to the principle of liability if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the ground of forgery or alteration of the Plaintiff’s test report by a collaborative company that could not have been perceived by the Plaintiff, and the main sentence of Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act is to expand the subject of sanctions to “employee” beyond the scope of delegation under Article 27(1) of the State Contracts Act, which is the mother, and is unlawful. 2) Article 27(1) of the State Contracts Act deeming that “The head of each central government agency is likely to undermine the fair enforcement of competition or the proper performance of contracts, or is deemed inappropriate