1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is stated by the court are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s main defense 1) The main point of the Defendant’s assertion belongs to a contract entered into by the State on an equal footing with the Plaintiff as the subject of private economy. The instant suspension of transaction is merely a judicial measure based on the special terms of this case, which is the content of the instant contract with multiple suppliers of this case, and does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. 2) Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act of the same legal doctrine provides that an administrative agency’s exercise of public power, refusal thereof, and other similar administrative actions are law enforcement pertaining to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency subject to appeal litigation. The issue of whether an administrative agency’s action can be subject to appeal litigation cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency, which directly affects citizens’ rights and obligations. In light of the content and purport of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, procedure of the act by interested parties such as the other party, etc., and the pertinent administrative agency’s exercise of public authority’s position, etc.