1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on the construction of the project for the creation of the So-gu Scenic Project, and received a completion inspection on the said construction on April 27, 2016.

On April 29, 2016, the Defendant imposed KRW 54,259,920 on the Plaintiff on April 29, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of the contract was delayed after the lapse of February 15, 2016, when the contract was completed.

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a free contract with the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the purchase of materials for strengthening the markets of the Seodong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant contract”), and at the time, the Plaintiff submitted each letter (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) stating, “Any of the grounds for disqualification upon entering into a free contract does not fall under any of the grounds for disqualification, and, if such facts are discovered later, will not be subject to the cancellation or termination of the contract and the disposition of unjust enterprisers who were subject to sanctions,” and the negotiated contract attached to each of the instant notes included: “The grounds for disqualification attached to each of the instant agreements of the relevant local government within the last three months as of the closing date for submitting the estimates” includes damages for delay, refusal of legitimate implementation, illegal subcontracting, and five or more times, and any person deemed difficult to enter into a contract differently from the credit, such as causing defect repair or water.”

In accordance with the results of the comprehensive audit of Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant submitted the instant statement to the effect that the Plaintiff did not constitute grounds for disqualification under a negotiated contract while entering into the instant contract even though the Plaintiff was disqualified for 51 days delayed due to the Plaintiff’s reasons for disqualification, and submitted false documents concerning the instant contract under Article 92(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the Local Government Is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28211, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts