1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (1) around August 2016, the Defendant (the Public Procurement Service) announced the 16-year regular Do government detection terminal purchase and installation of the 16-year regular Do government detection terminal at the request of the Korea Coast Guard Headquarters (the Ministry of Public Safety and Security), which is an end-user institution, and specified the bidding outline in the bidding outline “within 30 days after the contract.”

② On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff was selected as a successful tenderer. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase contract with the Defendant on a fixed date as the contract price of KRW 115,115,00, and the delivery deadline of KRW 115,115,00 on November 3, 2016.

(3) Section II of "the specifications for the purchase and installation of commercial City/Do detection devices" disclosed by end-user institutions. Technical demonstration items include the following contents:

④ While preparing for supply, the Plaintiff submitted a fair plan to an end-user institution, but the end-user institution refused to accept the plan while not meeting the conditions of exchange, and subsequently did not have access to the scope of exchange.

(5) An end-user institution shall conduct on November 10, 2016, December 7, 2012, 15, and January 11, 2017 and the same year.

1. 26. 26. The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service sent a public notice to the Incheon District Public Procurement Service and requested the termination of the contract with the Plaintiff on the grounds that the contract was “the failure to implement the supply of equipment within the contract period,” such as the failure to implement the arrival documents and process plan, the failure to implement the interoperability plan

④ The Defendant accepted the request of the end-user institution and rescinded the contract with the Plaintiff on January 31, 2017. As of February 1, 2017, the modified contract was prepared to cancel the contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared to supply 14 terminals prior to the delivery deadline, and notified the end-user institution, but rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the end-user institution did not satisfy the conditions of compatibility.

The Plaintiff.