1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,054,040 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 24, 2014 to July 15, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff at the Public Procurement Service

B. On December 20, 2013, the Defendant participated in the supply bid of the Central 119 Rescue Group “C” (hereinafter “instant goods”), and entered into a goods contract with D and D of Seoul Local Government Procurement Service on December 20, 2013, setting the contract amount of KRW 43,523,90, delivery period of KRW 29, January 29, 2014, and 150/150 of the penalty for delay.

B. On December 25, 2013, in order to supply the instant goods, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the Defendant and the instant goods are provided with the price of KRW 42 million (including additional taxes) and the delivery period on January 29, 2014, based on the specifications of the public announcement of tender (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On December 26, 2013, according to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full payment of KRW 42 million, and the written specifications of the public announcement of tender stipulate “exclusive high-tech (three Asiaeseese)”.

On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods by the Defendant and supplied them to the Central 119 Rescue Team of the National Emergency Management Agency on April 9, 2014, but the Plaintiff failed to pass a tally due to two reasons, and the Plaintiff completed the supply by receiving letters from the Defendant again, and supplying them on July 2, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff received KRW 33,469,950,00,000,000,054,040 for liquidated damages due to delay in the payment period, from the Seoul Local Government Procurement Service (i.e., KRW 43,523,90 x 154 days x 0.15% x 0.15% x 0.950 won for liquidated damages due to delay in the payment period, from the amount of supplied goods.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 8, 13, 14, 16, Eul’s 1, 5 through 38, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not supply the instant goods to the Plaintiff by January 29, 2014, thereby failing to comply with the delivery deadline (154 days of delayed delay). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 10,054,040 for delay delay, and the bid examination conducted “within the last six months.”