1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant entered into a purchase contract with the Plaintiff on April 7, 2015 pursuant to the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) on the part of the Non-Party Maritime Headquarters (hereinafter “Maritime Military Headquarters”) for the 4 units of water temperature measuring instruments at the request of Nonparty Maritime Headquarters (hereinafter “Maritime Military Headquarters”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). Contract name: The contract price for a water temperature measuring instrument four (hereinafter referred to as “water temperature measuring instrument”) of the instant water temperature measuring instrument: 215,580,000 won: The deadline for delivery: the end-user institution and the inspection institution on September 4, 2015: the Maritime Command:

B. On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the payment period on the grounds of the delay in production. Accordingly, on September 16, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 16, 2015 that the delivery period should not be extended at the request of the naval head of the Gun, a procuring entity

C. Meanwhile, on September 1, 2015, the Navy, which is an end-user institution, issued an order to support the supply of equipment (major content: the support for the verification of operational environment related to the supply of equipment) on September 1, 2015. At the time of the support for naval vessels of the Navy that was in progress on September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to carry the planned equipment to supply, resulting in the result of the failure of test.

On October 12, 2015, the defendant submitted a supply performance plan to the plaintiff by October 16, 2015 and notified the plaintiff that it is inevitable to cancel the contract when the contract performance is impossible, and that subsequent measures such as reversion of the contract bond to the National Treasury are inevitable.

E. On October 13, 2015, the Navy conducted the verification of the business entity’s actual history and capacity with respect to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2015. As a result, it was confirmed that the “unproduction of the basic constituent elements of equipment and the holding of S/W development capacity” in relation to the instant contract.

(f) thereafter;