1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for this court’s explanation are as follows, and except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the allegations made in the trial of the court of first instance, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with the

In Part 3, "At the time limit" was added to "(However, the defendant did not separately state the standards for evaluation of performance in the public announcement of the tender)".

After Chapter 3, "The defendant added expenses for the settlement of accounts and the settlement of accounts, as stated in the certificate of performance records at the time of the above qualification examination, to the expenses for personnel expenses, expenses, etc. excluding the settlement of accounts, and "settlement expenses" to the expenses for communications, office supplies, expendable goods, oil expenses, expenses for analysis and measurement, material expenses, test and inspection, commemorative expenses, repair expenses, repair expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, medicines, vehicle maintenance expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, waste disposal expenses, waste disposal expenses, payment fees, and other expenses for projects implemented at the request of the ordering agency (see Article 12 of the above Agreement on the Operation and Management of Food Waste Recycling Facilities at the time when the above qualification examination was conducted)."

After the 7th chapter 16, “The standard of evaluation shall be determined the same as the size and quantity of the service ordered at present,” which is the basis of the claim that the plaintiff should evaluate the performance evaluation as the same standard as the “standard amount”, means that the standard amount equivalent to the “division” shall be determined the same as the size and quantity of the service ordered at present in calculating the percentage of the service ordered at present in order to evaluate the performance performance, and even in accordance with the above provision, the plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no provision concerning the recognition of the performance performance corresponding to the “molecule”.

The first page of the 9th page "a point that is difficult to evaluate".