1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff raised objection.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is that the reasoning for this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the attached Forms 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as being stated in the attached Form 2, and the attached Form 1 and 2 is stated in the attached Form 1 and 2. Thus, the ground for this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. As to the main claim

A. With respect to the claim by the parties, the plaintiff primarily sought confirmation that he is a successful bidder with respect to the instant bidding, the defendant asserts that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. It is recognized that the lawsuit for confirmation of judgment on the prior defense of the merits is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension or risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable or dangerous.

Therefore, even though it is possible to file a lawsuit claiming implementation, it is not a final solution of the dispute, so there is no benefit of confirmation.

On the other hand, the legal nature of the determination of a successful bidder under the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) is to conclude this contract more separately after bidding and award of a contract.

(2) According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance on June 29, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41603, Jun. 29, 2006). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the head of Seocheon branch under the Defendant shall select the Plaintiff as a successful bidder on January 29, 2016, by publicly announcing the tender of this case (specific contents are as stated in attached Table 2). The Plaintiff submitted the proposal to the Defendant according to the public notice of the tender of this case. The Defendant selected the Plaintiff as a successful bidder on March 28, 2016 following the evaluation procedure implemented on March 24, 2016.