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. The defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning suspension of execution of the disposition of this case 3.) except for adding the judgment as set forth in Paragraph 2 below to the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The name was changed to the Korean Testing and Research Institute at present after the third "Korean Testing and Research Institute" in the second below the judgment of the first instance.

hereinafter referred to as "Korea Chemical Testing Institute"

"in addition".

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 a strict examination can be supplied through strict examination. Therefore, ① subcontracting is prohibited in principle for Q Grade parts, and subcontracting shall be subject to evaluation of the subcontractor’s quality assurance capability (written procedures for quality assurance) by the Defendant, ② the contracting party shall deliver only the goods that passed the examination and inspection on its own expenses, and submit a certificate of test and inspection signed by the responsible person (the general conditions for the purchase of goods) without the Defendant’s approval. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods through an unqualified subcontractor at will without the Defendant’s permission. This is fair.