1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. With regard to the argument that the defendant made in the trial of the court of the court of the first instance, the reasons for the decision of the court of the first instance, except for adding the judgment as stated in Paragraph 2 below, but it is identical to the entry that excludes "the suspension of execution of the disposition of this case" portion from the second to the 12th fourth reduction of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is cited by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second heat of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the refrigerator with the refrigerator.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s nuclear power plant (hereinafter “nuclear power plant”).

The grades of parts to be managed for operation are classified into Q (Safety Level), A (Safety Level), and S (General Industrial Classification). Two Q Grade parts are directly related to the safety of nuclear power plant and require high quality and high-level safety. Therefore, only qualified enterprises that passed strict review can be supplied through strict review as they directly require high level of quality and high-level safety. Therefore, ① subcontracting is prohibited in principle for Q Grade parts, and subcontracting shall be subject to evaluation of the subcontractor’s quality assurance capacity (written procedures for quality assurance) by the Defendant even in the case of subcontracting, and ② the contracting party shall deliver only the goods that passed the test and inspection on its own expenses, and submit a certificate of test and inspection signed by the responsible person (general conditions for the purchase of goods. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff supplied goods through an unqualified subcontractor at will without the Defendant’s approval, and did not verify the authenticity of the test report of this case. This constitutes an act that is obviously detrimental to fair competition or proper implementation of the contract.

In addition, any result is derived from the submission of forged test results.