1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of electricity and information and communications construction business, which participates in various government-order projects and private business operators' bids, etc. and supplies products.

B. As seen in the table below, the Plaintiff participated in the bid ordered by the Defendant and concluded the contract as the final successful bidder.

(2) A project for the replacement and reinforcement of the head office location of a city, and the project for the reinforcement of the network access control system, collectively, shall be construed as “the instant contract”). A project for the reinforcement of the network access control system, including the project for the replacement and reinforcement of the head office location and the contract for the two projects, upon the expiration of the contract price as the contract date of the project name, shall be construed as “the instant contract”). From April 6, 2015 to June 5, 2015, the project for the replacement and reinforcement of the head office location at the time of the contract price as the contract price as the contract date for the project name, and the project for the reinforcement of the network access control system, which is KRW 10,541,95,00 on April 20, 2015 to June 73, 2015, 205;

C. Since the Plaintiff was an installer who is not a manufacturer of the main location of the primary business, the Plaintiff was obligated to submit to the Defendant a letter of obligation to supply products and provide technical assistance from the manufacturer.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased goods from A, one of the manufacturing companies in the back-to-date location and received a certificate of technical assistance, but A refused to issue the Plaintiff’s sales contract and the certificate of technical assistance on the ground that “A may not sell goods directly to domestic customers and sell and provide technical assistance only through an official partner.”

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the delivery period by July 10, 2015 on the grounds that the Plaintiff was unable to be supplied with goods on the basis of unfair treatment of the goods supplier (A). The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to extend the delivery period by July 10, 2015 on the grounds that the goods purchase contract was currently made with B and the preparation was completed.

On June 5, 2015, the defendant recognized that the plaintiff was treated unfairly, or that the plaintiff entered into a contract with B.