The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff 1) as stipulated in the judgment of the first instance, which was accepted prior to the State Contracts Act, refers to “the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party.” The term “employee” under Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree refers to a person under the direction and supervision of the other party to the contract, etc. Therefore, a subcontractor who has forged or altered the report is not subject to the Plaintiff’s instruction and supervision in the status of contractor under the Civil Act, and thus does not constitute the said “employee.” 2) Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act refers only to the documents

Therefore, the instant test report not only constitutes documents related to the performance of the contract, but also does not constitute the Plaintiff’s duty to submit the report, and thus does not constitute “documents relating to the contract.”

3) Since the Plaintiff did not recognize that the Plaintiff’s report was falsified and altered, it cannot be deemed as a person who submitted false documents under Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act. Even if the Plaintiff is a person who submitted false documents, the Plaintiff is practically unable to verify the authenticity of the report on the ground that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to individually verify the authenticity of the report on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties was in fact impossible. 4) The fundamental cause of the failure to develop a computer network was established in the Defendant’s excessive goal, and as set forth in the first instance judgment cited prior to ACD, “new concept technology demonstration” refers to “as determined in the first instance judgment cited prior to ACD.”

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

The project shall be.