1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff registered the following patents as a corporation operating the manufacture and sale of CCTV broadcasting equipment, which applied to the vehicle number recognition system:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant patent”). The name of the invention is the filing date of the vehicle number recognition system: The registration date on November 4, 2014: the registration number on February 17, 2015: No. 10-1496390: the current status of the designation of outstanding products (designated number) specifications or model products of this case (2015.143) designated products (RD-S-C-130 SDR-200 SDR-230 SDR-230 SDR-C-280 SDR-280 SDR-C-500 SDR-C-2000 SDR-C-200C-200C-200, Sep. 2015, 2015; the person who has obtained the recognition of the software number 9-201-3.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for designation of exemplary procurement commodities pursuant to Article 9-2 of the Procurement Act (hereinafter “Planning Act”) regarding “three-dimensional image conversion techniques and self-check Smart Vehicle Number Recognition System” to which the instant patent applies, and the Defendant designated the said products as exemplary procurement commodities on September 21, 2015 as follows.

(hereinafter “instant designated product”). C.

On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of the instant designated product with the contract period of KRW 3,075,610,000, from February 19, 2016 to February 18, 2018.

On September 6, 2017, the Defendant received an objection regarding the instant designated product, stating that “The instant designated product is an essential element of the two cameras (the first and second film) in the case of the instant patent, and the instant designated product was not subject to patent technology due to only one representative camera in the instant designated product.”

In the technology council held on October 20, 2017, six examiners among nine examiners were deemed to have reasonable grounds.

E. The Defendant on November 27, 2017