1. The Defendant’s normal publication of the B management body on March 2, 2018 is publicly announced as C, and the bid for “D services” conducted on March 12, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2018, the E affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) announced the bidding of D Service (hereinafter referred to as the “instant bidding”) that manages the wastewater treatment facilities of the F unit located in Gyeongcheon-cheon, North Korea (hereinafter referred to as “instant service”) as indicated in the attached list. On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff participated in the lower amount below the estimated price of the instant service and was selected as the subject of the first priority examination.

B. On March 19, 2018, when submitting documents related to the qualification examination to the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted “the performance results of performing the entrusted service of five wastewater treatment facilities outside the G,” as the performance results of the service, but the Defendant excluded the service performance from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 among the performance results in the instant case pursuant to Article 5 of the Directive of the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “instant Directive”) regarding the criteria for the qualification examination of general services as follows (hereinafter “the instant instruction”), and then assessed the performance results as 9 points and the comprehensive deliberation point as 84.65 points to notify the Plaintiff of the lack of qualification.

Article 5 (Methods of Evaluation) (2) Evaluation of performance shall be conducted in accordance with the following subparagraphs, and detailed application details shall be in accordance with the performance results in attached Tables 1 and 2:

2. The actual performance of a person subject to examination of qualifications shall be assessed by aggregating the amount (excluding the area or quantity of value-added tax) or the amount (excluding the amount or value-added tax) equivalent to or higher than the object of a contract or similar services specified in the public announcement of tender within the last five years, regardless of the contract date and the delivery deadline, and if intending to adjust the actual performance period, the details adjusted in

C. On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff requested a re-examination to the Defendant, but the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the disqualification on April 3, 2018, and on April 4, 2018, re-public notice on the instant tender was given.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff.