1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, since the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, the following are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 11th to 10th to 10th 8th 10 of the judgment of the first instance, which has been completely used, shall be as follows.

2) As to whether the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission without the notice of performance, the Plaintiff asserts that the notification of cancellation of the instant contract is unlawful since the Defendant immediately rescinded the instant contract with the Plaintiff without demanding the Plaintiff to perform its obligation. The Plaintiff did not deliver the instant contract by December 2, 2014, the delivery deadline to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2014, and the Gangwon Local Government Procurement Service did not deliver the delivery to the Plaintiff even after the expiration of the delivery deadline. The Plaintiff sent a public notice demanding the Plaintiff to submit the delivery implementation plan by December 18, 2014, upon notifying the Plaintiff of the request for termination of the contract from the end-user institution. Moreover, the Gangwon Local Government Procurement Service at that time did not submit the supply implementation plan by the above submission deadline, or, upon examining the supply implementation plan submitted by the Plaintiff by the B National Land Management Office, the end-user institution. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s explanation that the termination of the contract in this case should not be accepted as the Plaintiff’s delivery notice for the implementation of the instant contract.

The plaintiff is the Director of the Gangwon-gu Local Government Procurement Service.