1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a company affiliated with the Seoul High Concom Industrial Cooperative (hereinafter “SP”) and supplied ready-mixeds at Scheon-si from 2012 to 2015 pursuant to the unit price contract concluded between the Nonparty and the Defendant.

B. The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff, in collusion with the construction company, issued a false supply certificate and delivered it to the construction company even though the Plaintiff did not actually supply the government-funded ready-mixed at the construction site, and acquired the price of ready-mixed (hereinafter “market price”) totaling KRW 54,83,226 on 23 occasions from around 2012 to 2015 (hereinafter “the dispute price”). The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff’s act was omitted from the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”), Article 76(1)8 and 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”), and the Defendant added the above provision on March 29, 2016 to the grounds for disposition. The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff did not dispute about the addition of the above disposition on the date of first pleading as the ground for disposition.

On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a limitation on participation in bidding for nine months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a violation.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Taking into account the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s assertion amount is extremely part of the ready-mixed quantity that the Plaintiff supplied at the time of Macheon, the Plaintiff inevitably issued a false supply certificate upon the construction company’s request, and the Plaintiff, a small business entity, is bound to discontinue its business, and most damaged amount was recovered.