1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that is engaged in human resources supply business, management agency business, etc. necessary for the operation of sewage treatment facilities, entered into a contract for the integrated management and management of environmental infrastructure facilities at B during the period of contract from January 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the first contract”) and entered into a contract for the integrated management and management of environmental infrastructure facilities at B during the period from January 8, 2016 and from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (hereinafter “the second contract”), and entered into a contract for the integrated management and management of environmental infrastructure facilities at B during the period of contract from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (hereinafter “the second contract”).

B. On May 8, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the participation of unjust enterprisers (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “a person who provided relevant public officials with money, valuables, or other property benefits in connection with the performance of a contract” and the period of sanctions was from May 30, 2018 to June 29, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s employee (head) of the Plaintiff’s claim of non-existence of the instant disposition is not related to the conclusion or performance of each contract of this case to offer money and entertainment to the public officials belonging to B. Moreover, there is a justifiable reason not to be attributable to the Plaintiff’s negligence of performing his/her duties to prevent the act of offering of bribe by an employee to the public officials belonging to B. 2) Since the money and valuables and entertainment offered by C to the public officials belonging to B in the instant case are very significant to the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer from the instant disposition compared to the small amount of money. Therefore, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing discretion.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Judgment 1 of this case