1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On April 1, 2003, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) concluded an entrustment contract with the Plaintiff for the inspection of waterworks measuring instruments, and continued to serve as the inspection personnel of waterworks measuring instruments (hereinafter “inspection personnel”), and subsequently renewed the contract at a one-half-year interval thereafter.

As a part of the renewal of the contract, on December 31, 2015, the Intervenor entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with the Plaintiff under the terms “from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017” (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

(A) The intervenor’s notice of February 19, 2004 and August 27, 2012 is indicated as August 21, 2012. However, according to the evidence No. 22, the intervenor appears to be a clerical error on August 27, 2012.

It is judged that continuous performance of duties is impossible even if the warning was given twice due to the cause of civil petition, etc., but it is not possible to neglect the re-examination and to violate the direction.

Article 6 (Duties and Responsibilities) of the Entrustment Contract of this case stated the main contents of the Entrustment Contract of this case in the fifth to eight pages of the decision.

Pursuant to Article 8 (1) 1 and 4 of the Entrustment Contract of this case on the ground of violation, the entrustment contract of this case shall be terminated from March 2017 to March 2017.

B. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the purport that “the instant consignment contract shall be terminated from March 2017, 2017,” with the reasons indicated in the following table:

hereinafter referred to as "the termination of the instant consignment contract"

(A)(Evidence A). The intervenor’s specific action at issue when the plaintiff terminated the instant consignment contract is ① entry of 14 inspection devices into the inspection device without any inspection of the measuring instruments that must be carried out once a month for 14 inspection inspections (the number of inspection units), and then the inspection device entry code in order to meet the quantity of the inspection device and the quantity of the measuring instruments marked on the measuring instruments.