beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 2014, the Defendant issued a public notice of bid for the procurement commodities (a multi-user contract) (hereinafter “public notice of tender in this case”). The public notice of tender in this case is “10,000 square meters of a dead structure, an estimated price of 5,00,000,000 won of a dead structure” under a contract with multiple suppliers; however, the Defendant selected the counter-party to the contract in accordance with a contract with multiple suppliers; the qualification for the application for participation in the purchase is “A manufacturer who registered the demand commodities to purchase the commodities with ten detailed name numbers (10,000 square meters of a dead structure, an estimated price of 5,00,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax)” (Article 2014-4, and March 5, 2014 of the Public Notice of the Government Procurement Service).
B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff bided in accordance with the instant public notice of tender, and entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods to each end-user institution, including the amount of KRW 713,00,000 square meters of dead structure to KRW 713,00,00,000, Gyeongcheon-si, Incheon, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”). From that time, the Plaintiff supplied dead structure to the said end-user institution by the end of 2015.
C. On November 2016, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff reproductiond a dead structure equivalent to KRW 49,827,620, which was supplied to the non-affort military unit and KRW 12,812,810, which was supplied to Kimcheon, in accordance with the instant contract, in the course of investigating whether a company that concluded a contract with multiple suppliers with respect to the dead structure violates the obligation of direct production.
Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s supply of a dead structure that was not directly produced on August 24, 2017 constitutes “cases where the Plaintiff performed a bad, bad, or improper act in the performance of a contract” (hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”).