1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In 1973, the Plaintiff is a comprehensive defense contractor that develops, arranges, and sells various weapons systems, such as mobile weapons systems, after being designated as a defense industry company.

B. From 2006 to 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a 24 goods supply contract with the Defendant on the instant goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) and supplied the goods to the Defendant by way of subcontracting the manufacture of parts to the subcontractor (hereinafter “each of the instant goods”).

C. Around August 2013, the Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance confirmed that a total of 315 test reports (hereinafter “each test report of this case”) submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, among the test reports submitted by the Supplier while performing the instant contract, were altered.

On August 4, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification to participate in bidding for three months from August 11, 2015 to November 10, 2015 by applying Article 27(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”), Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, Article 76 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 10(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act, by applying Article 10(b) to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether there exists a ground for disposition under Article 76(1) main text and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (i) whether the part of “agent, manager, or other employee” under the main text of Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act is invalid by expanding its scope of application without delegation under Article 27(1) of the State Contracts Act) is the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion.