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 is a company that operates specialized fire-fighting system construction business, export and import business, etc.

B. At the request of the Gyeonggi-do Fire and Disaster Headquarters to purchase the fire-fighting disaster headquarters, the Incheon Regional Government Procurement Service publicly announced the announcement of hazardous substances response equipment (explosion protection equipment and supplies) by a limited competitive bid around October 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant tender”). (c)

After participating in the instant bidding, the Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder on October 17, 2014, and on November 4, 2014, the Incheon Regional Procurement Service and the “Demand Agency: The Gyeonggi-do Fire and Disaster Headquarters: Fire and Disaster Headquarters, name of goods and delivery period: February 2, 2015; the contract amount: 118,895,00 won: Fire-preventive equipment; specifications: 118,895,000 won; and goods supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The goods to be supplied under the contract of this case shall be the protective clothes and fitnesss worn for the bomb defense, and the specific specifications for the purchase of the above goods under the purchase specification presented by the procuring entity for the above goods (hereinafter “the purchase specification of this case”) shall be as specified in the attached Table 1 of the purchase specification for the above goods.

E. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s supply on the ground that the Plaintiff’s goods to be supplied do not satisfy the requirements for the performance of protection stipulated in the purchase specification of this case. On July 20, 2015, the Incheon Regional Government Procurement Service rescinded the instant contract with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the instant contract.

F. Accordingly, on October 14, 2015, the Defendant restricted the qualification to participate in bidding for five months from October 15, 2015 to March 14, 2016 pursuant to Article 31 of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”), Article 92 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 76 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.