1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of construction works, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of construction works, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

(F) No certificate of performance or building register related to the performance issued by the F Association was submitted. (d)

On April 16, 2019, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the certificate of performance and building register completed for approval for use by the end of April 18, 2019, as the documents related to the qualification examination were insufficient, and around that time, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the documents related to the qualification examination on the ground that there was an error in the detailed explanation of the construction performance certificate among the documents related to the qualification examination notified on April 9, 2019, and to supplement the documents by April 23, 2019.

(2) The latest five years' performance (* Revision) issued by the Association related to the certificate of work experience in the execution of documents.

E. On April 2019, the Plaintiff submitted only a certificate of construction work performance (for the last five years, from 2013 to 2017) issued by the F Association as a supplementary document at the request of the Defendant (for the last five years, from 2013 to 2017) and a building register concerning part of the construction performance.

F. On April 24, 2019, the Defendant did not recognize some of the construction records submitted by the Plaintiff that the building ledger was not submitted, and assessed the Plaintiff’s qualification examination results as the total point of 89 points (construction experience: 9 points, management status: 15 points, and bid price assessment: 65 points). The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the results fall short of the total point of 95 points and are inappropriate for the instant construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 and 7, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. After the Defendant’s notice of inappropriate performance of the instant construction against the Plaintiff’s defense prior to the merits, the Defendant selected the second priority as the result of bidding.