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 is a person who conducts business, such as consulting, design, and education, with the trade name of “B”.

B. The Plaintiff received the advance payment of KRW 83,939,50 in total from the Defendant by altering the national and local taxes required at the time of advance payment, and the issue date of the certificate of full payment of the fourth insurance.

The specific contents are as follows:

C Services 130,00,000 for advance payment for the total contract period of the contract under the name of the contract, from June 11, 2018 to December 11, 2018, 52,879,000 for D services 52,879,00 on November 21, 2017 to December 20, 2018, 62,40,000 for E services 62,40,000 to May 15, 2015 to November 30, 200, 79,114,000 for F services from March 6, 200 to December 20, 2018;

C. On December 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a sanction against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff forged documents regarding the contract regarding the above service contract, pursuant to Article 15 of the Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions, Article 27(1)8 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), and Article 76(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which restricts the Plaintiff’s participation in bidding for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion from 2015 to 2015 did not cause any problem while performing the government-funded construction work, returned advance payment immediately after receiving the Defendant’s request for return of advance payment, and faithfully performed the contract even after return of advance payment. The Plaintiff did not constitute “a person who is obviously likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate implementation of the contract,” and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is due to the instant disposition.