1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are used in part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. In addition to the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to "paragraph 3", the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a)the following shall be added between the 7th sentence of the first instance and the 11th sentence:

【The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s request to provide “supply Declaration” on the pesticide of this case and thereby, the Defendant and the representative director importing the pesticide of this case in the name of the same E, and participating in the instant tender and thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of the terms of “supply to the Public Procurement Service, etc.” against the good faith, such as being selected as the first-class company. As such, the Plaintiff may assert that the other party has fulfilled the conditions under Article 150(1) and Article 150(1) of the Civil Act (i) interfered with the parties at disadvantage due to the fulfillment of the conditions against the good faith and good faith.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the terms of “supply to the Government Procurement Service, etc.” can be seen as having been fulfilled.

However, as seen earlier, the company participating in the instant bidding by the Public Procurement Service on December 10, 2015 and selected as the first-class company is not the Defendant but the company with separate legal personality as it is E. Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to the trial and the circumstances of its assertion were examined, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant imported the instant pesticide in the name of E, participated in the said bidding, and thereby obstructed the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of the terms of “supply to the Public Procurement Service, etc.” in violation of the good faith principle as to the instant contract, and it is otherwise acceptable.