1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

A. The chief officer of the department in charge of the business determined, through a prior meeting, the scheduled winner of the successful bid as stated in the following table 6 with respect to four tenders, such as S 20, 21, S Ma22, 23, R Ma17, S Ma24 (or Ma24, 25) bids (the pertinent bid is not actually ordered, and the accurate name of the construction is not known).

However, the bid is not implemented as agreed because it did not place an order. S Ma24 (or Ma24, 25).

Examining the agreement between 8 companies, including the Plaintiff, etc. at the time of the biddingJ and N in the 207-207-207-2007-7-2007-2007-7-2006-2005-2005-2005-2006-206-206-20-2006-20-7-2006-20-20-20-20-20-200-20-200-20-200-20-200-20-20-20

See Table 7: 2005 to 2006 and the order of order of 2007 agreement, 2005 to 2007 agreed 1 E 2 G L L L 3 in 2007, 1E 5 I 5 K K K K 6 A7 NN 8 J 8 line: 4) 8 companies including the Plaintiff’s agreement in 2009, etc. were ordered to contract Tproduction base construction works through 2005 to 207. Accordingly, the employees in charge of the business of 8 companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., were unable to undergo a new consultation on the bid at the time of the bid bid, 2009 or 207, 205 to 205 to 206 to 310 to 310 to 4 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to the bid.