1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. On June 7, 2006, the Plaintiff concluded 12 contracts by August 4, 2014, including entering into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the Korean-type helicopter system with the corporation engaged in the design, manufacturing, and military supply of aircraft, space vessels, etc.

B. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the certification of the cost management system (term of validity: between December 13, 2012 and December 12, 2015; hereinafter “instant certification”) in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of the former cost management system (Guidelines for Contract Management Headquarters’s Certification of Cost Management System; hereinafter “Guidelines”).

(c) The Board of Audit and Inspection shall from January 19, 2015 to the same year.

3. On July 24, 2015, after conducting an audit on the Plaintiff’s development of aircraft by June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained unjust enrichment by submitting false materials in relation to the aircraft development project, through thorough cost verification work, and that the Plaintiff submitted false materials to recover KRW 2.915 billion from the cost of outsourcing services that the Plaintiff received unjustly.

The defendant from August 3, 2015 to the same year in accordance with such notification by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

8. By September 15, 2015, after conducting a special verification of outsourcing service costs concluded with the Plaintiff, including Korea-type helicopter system development projects, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the special verification that the outsourcing service cost paid unfairly to the Plaintiff was KRW 3,909,812,740.

E. On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for renewal upon the expiration of the instant certification period with the head of the contract management headquarters affiliated with the Defendant, but the head of the contract management headquarters affiliated with the Defendant did not respond to the said application for renewal.

F. On December 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on December 8, 2015, that he/she would present his/her opinion on the scheduled date to hold a meeting of the Deliberation Committee on Revocation of Designation of a Faithful Data Submission, and the Plaintiff submitted his/her written opinion to the Defendant on December 8, 2015, but to the Deliberation Committee.