1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s status as the parties is engaged in the development business, etc., and the Defendant is engaged in the development business, etc. of human turdy.

B. In early 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the production, sale, and construction of human protein, and the Defendant produced human protein and registered sales in the Public Procurement Service. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with a State agency and a public institution to engage in the sale and construction of such human protein.

In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant began to conduct the related business in the above way from that time.

C. The Public Procurement Service’s disposition to suspend trading on the Defendant’s production man-help, but the Public Procurement Service rendered a disposition to suspend trading on the Defendant’s human protedi products from November 2, 2009 to December 2, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the part of the agreement was that the Plaintiff actively operated the Defendant’s personal assistance products against the public institution’s business partners, etc. in accordance with the business agreement with the Defendant.

However, on the wind that the defendant is subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction on human proted products by the Public Procurement Service, public institutions' customers, etc. who need to purchase the products through the Public Procurement Service did not purchase human proted products. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses without any income from the business expenses, etc.

On November 2, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted the above damages to the Defendant, and the Defendant suggested that the Defendant compensates the Plaintiff for the damages in the manner of awarding the construction work for which certain benefits are given to the Plaintiff.

In addition, on February 9, 2010, the Defendant: (a) specifically stated on the Plaintiff on February 9, 2010, KRW 88,500 per square meter; (b) KRW 14,000,000 per square meter; and (c) KRW 120,000,000 per square meter for construction area