1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling industrial measuring instruments and control devices.

On the other hand, the Defendant was designated as a “other public institution” pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Act on the Management of Public Institutions”) with the purpose of developing electric resources, and was changed on January 24, 201 to a “market-type public corporation” under Article 2011-1 of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance notification pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions.

B. On June 27, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of goods on April 30 through January 31, 2007 with regard to “C” to be used in the first and second period of B nuclear power plants (including value-added tax) and the supply period of which is KRW 1,50,785,000 (including value-added tax) and January 31, 2009

(B) No. 3, hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

Around November 2007, the Plaintiff received a test report from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), a sewage company, and received a test report from E for the steel board, a material of external box, and delivered the report to the Defendant on or around December 20, 2007, and supplied the report to the Defendant on or around December 20, 207, the following 3 of the test report as follows.

C. (1) The test report as indicated in paragraph (1) was submitted together with the “instant test report,” and the pertinent goods were submitted. D.

Around January 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the entries of the instant test report are inconsistent with the original as a result of an audit, and issued a restriction on the qualification to participate in bidding (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Defendant Contract Rules, Article 97(1)8 and attached Table 10(b) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who forges, alters, or fraudulently executes documents concerning tendering or contract or submits false documents” on March 6, 2015, following prior notice of disposition and deliberation and resolution by the Deliberation Committee on Special Contracts, around February 2015.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.