1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is a legal entity with the objective of treating ruptures and ruptures attached thereto, etc.

Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) is a corporation with the objective of generating, transmitting, transformation, distributing, and related businesses.

Defendant Student Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a corporation whose purpose is waste disposal business, etc.

B. On February 26, 2010, at the public notice of the Defendant Corporation’s tender notice, the Defendant Corporation made an electronic bid for services with the following content regarding the processing of pulmonary pressure instruments containing polychlorinateds (Paly Chl orinated Bhl orphs (hereinafter “PCBs”).

1. Service name: Services entrusted with the treatment of waste ionotensions contained in PCBs;

2. Outline of services;

(a) Estimated amount: 1,081,080,000 won (including value-added tax);

(b) Estimated price: 982,800,000 won (excluding value-added tax);

(c) Provision of services: 600t of disposal entrusted with pulmonary voltages (1,600 grosss of disposals).

(d) The service period: 30 days from the commencement date.

3. Qualifications for participation in bidding: A disposal business entity permitted to simultaneously dispose of the liquid and solid state of waste transformers designated as the controlled wastes under the Wastes Control Act and other relevant Acts.

4. He shall determine as a successful tenderer an enterprise recognized as qualified after examining the lowest tenderer in order of the persons who have tendered the lowest tenderer at a ratio higher than that of the determination method of the successful tenderer;

The notice was published.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant tender”). C.

The plaintiff and the defendant company participated in the bid of this case. At the time, the defendant company was equipped with a dangerous substance storage facility under the Act on the Safety Control of Hazardous Substances, and the plaintiff was equipped with a manufacturing facility other than a dangerous substance storage facility. 2) On March 10, 2010, the defendant company and the defendant company were selected as the defendant company, the second, and the second, and the third, and the defendant company was finally determined as the successful bidder.