1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 8, 2011, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, which belongs to the defendant, announced the following through the comprehensive national electronic procurement system.

The name of a bid: The method of contract for the repair parts of the Roman detection tracking device (purchase): The total amount of - contract type: the method of determining a successful bidder: the method of determining a successful bidder: On November 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with the Defendant from December 20, 201 to December 20, 201, with the content that the contract amount is KRW 1,047,00,000 for all items, other than the repair parts of the Roman detection tracking device, and the contract deposit is KRW 104,70,000,000 for the contract deposit, and the delivery date is from December 20, 201 to December 20, 2012.

On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract to change the contract amount to KRW 977,651,424, and the contract deposit to KRW 97,765,142 due to the reduction of the contract quantity. The Plaintiff concluded the performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and submitted the guarantee certificate to replace the payment of the contract bond.

On December 10, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a quality assurance plan to the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, and submitted a circuit assembly [the stock number of which is 598-14617523” among the contracted goods of this case, the Plaintiff is the “goods of this case”.

B notified the Plaintiff to directly manufacture and supply them, and the Defendant consented thereto.

However, on November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff determined that the supply of the instant goods through the manufacture and purchase of the instant goods is impossible as a matter of the encryption code, and requested the Defendant to cancel the request for procurement and to modify the content of the contract. On November 20, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to cancel the procurement and modify the terms of the contract.

On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to make a modified contract for the instant good, and notified the Defendant that the contract would be impossible due to force majeure, etc. if the modified contract is not in place.

The defendant on December 6, 2013.