1. The Defendant’s disposition to suspend the participation of the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation established pursuant to the Social Welfare Services Act and constitutes an organization that can conclude a private contract with the State pursuant to Article 26(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”).

B. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for purchase of goods between the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and the Air Force, and supplied the entire goods.

C. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified that the receipt number (B204-112232) of the test report (hereinafter “instant test report”) of the team of reflectors attached to the said Air Force Sports Uniform supplied by the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, which was not actually nonexistent.

In the course of the investigation on this, the Plaintiff received the original team from Seohovah, Co., Ltd., the partner company, and Seohovah, Co., Ltd. submitted to the Plaintiff the report of this case which arbitrarily altered the receipt number and issuance date, and the Plaintiff submitted the report of this case submitted from Seohovah, Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the Defense Technology and Quality Agency.

On December 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to limit the qualification for participation in bidding for four months pursuant to Article 27(1) of the State Contracts Act, Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, and Article 76(1) and [Attachment 2] subparagraph 10(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff submitted the instant test report that was forged or altered.”

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2 through 5, 7, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification to participate in bidding for one year against the Plaintiff. In accordance with Article 76(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act, the Defendant is subject to the restriction.