1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to deliver KRW 9,450,000 to October 31, 2012 of the contract amounting to KRW 9,450,00.

The Plaintiff contracted the production of A, one of the items specified in the instant contract, (hereinafter “instant goods”), to B, a partner.

However, B submitted a revised report as if the date of issuance of the test report issued before supplying the instant product to the Plaintiff was a new test report issued with respect to the instant product.

(hereinafter “instant test report”). On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the instant product to the Defendant, and around that time, submitted the instant test report to the Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance, which is the Defendant’s quality guarantee agency.

On August 4, 2015, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a false test report altered by the Plaintiff’s subcontractor (hereinafter “reasons for Disposition 1”), and ② the Plaintiff submitted a false test report altered.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disposition 2”) imposed restrictions on qualification for participation in bidding on the ground of Article 27(1) of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”), Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 10] subparagraph 10(b) of Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the State Contract Act”).

(2) Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act on the issue of whether the disposition in this case exists or not, is lawful, and Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act on the issue of whether the disposition in this case is lawful or not is determined based on the fact that there is no dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 6.