beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 23, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Maritime Headquarters under the Defendant to maintain two parts of the breakdowns (part number: SBY001, 92-003) by October 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant renewal contract”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the radio monitoring device for radio detection and distance measurement (hereinafter “instant equipment”).
B. As the Plaintiff failed to maintain the payment period by the said payment period, the Defendant entered into a revised contract with the Plaintiff on October 31, 2010, extending the payment period of the instant improvement contract to March 31, 201 on the grounds that “the extension of the payment period following the suspension of overseas supply of parts required for additional improvement”. 2) The Plaintiff failed to renew the payment period by the next due date; on March 31, 2011, the Defendant extended the payment period after the lapse of the payment period by November 30, 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff “the extension of the payment period for additional parts” was the extension of the payment period by November 30, 201, and the payment period of the instant improvement contract was finally extended to December 31, 2012.
C. A disposition restricting participation in bidding 1) As the Plaintiff failed to complete the maintenance of the instant equipment even after the expiration of the extended payment period, the Navy headquarters notifies the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant maintenance contract on January 3, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the contract (hereinafter “instant termination”).
(2) On January 28, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the Ministry of National Defense a proposal for sanction against the Plaintiff against unjust enterprisers. 2) On December 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the contract without justifiable grounds, Article 27 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “the Act”); and (b) Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “instant disposition”).