1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. A supply contract made on May 6, 2015 regarding the details of the disposition;

1. Names of goods: General mother and child products and 25 items (total 126,809 items);

2. Contract price: 578,891,518 won, contract bond: 57,889,151 won;

3. Date of delivery: From July 31, 2015 to May 30, 2016 by item.

4. Quality assurance type: A standard quality assurance type (III) supply contract on May 19, 2015.

1. Names of goods: Types 39, et al. (71,857);

2. Contract amount: 72,983,229 won, contract deposit: 77,298,322 won;

3. Date of delivery: From July 20, 2015 to June 30, 2016 for items.

4. Quality guarantee type: Standard quality guarantee type (III), or required military examination (mothers for military cadets) based on items;

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff, as a manufacturer of various textile products, participated in the supply bid of “general mother and child” and “fat” as publicly notified by the Defendant, and was determined as a successful tenderer. On May 6, 2015 and May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into each supply contract with the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract”).

B. From February 2016 to July 2016, the Defendant extended the delivery period of the instant contract to the Plaintiff three times, respectively. Accordingly, the delivery period of the general mother and child was finally extended from May 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016, and the delivery period of the mother and child was extended from June 30 to October 31, 2016, respectively.

C. Until September 5, 2016, among 126,809 general mother and child, the Plaintiff supplied 92,969 (73.3% = 92,969 ± 126,809 ± 100 x 100; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 42,156 among 71,857 mother and mother until November 4, 2016 (58.7% = 42,156 ± 71,857 x 100 x 100) respectively, and the remaining goods have not been supplied.

On November 10, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract, on the ground that the supply was not completed within the supply period due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and that there was no possibility of further supply in the future. On February 17, 2017, the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party does not exceed the Act.