1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2003, the Plaintiff developed “a fixed device in the shape of an increase that prevents escape from the stoppy of a road signer and a marking bottle construction technology using a revolving-prevention wheel,” and obtained from the Minister of Construction and Transportation a new technology (protection period: from April 9, 2003 to April 8, 2012) (the protection period: from April 9, 2003 to the protection period), and obtained a new product certification from the Minister of Knowledge Economy on July 15, 2008

(Protection Period: up to July 14, 201, the plaintiff's above technology is "new technology of this case" and "the road sign-up disease created by the plaintiff using the new technology of this case" is "the new product of this case."

The provisions related to new technology and new products shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 34(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22525, Dec. 13, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the contracting authority shall reflect the new technology in the construction work it implements. Thus, the Defendant did not reflect the new technology in the design of the instant case in ordering and executing construction works.

Therefore, if the Defendant reflected the new technology of this case in the design, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to one million won, which is part of the profits that the Plaintiff could have obtained.

B. The second assertion is legally obligated to purchase at least 20% of the purchase amount of road signs as the new product of this case pursuant to Article 17(1) of the former Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10708, May 24, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23313, Nov. 23, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply), but the defendant fails to perform its duty to purchase the new product of this case without justifiable grounds.