1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a comprehensive construction company with the purpose of landscaping construction business.

B. Around June 11, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 2,00,00 to C headD of Busan Metropolitan City, to the Plaintiff on the ground that the representative director of the Plaintiff would be able to enjoy convenience in relation to E landscaping works. On December 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for two months (from January 8, 2015 to March 7, 2015; hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension of business”) following the hearing procedure pursuant to Articles 38-2 and 82-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, etc., and the former Enforcement Decree of the Contracts to which the Local Government is a Party (amended by Act No. 1200, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Contracts Act”) and Article 31 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12683, Jan. 26, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of restriction on participation in the tendering procedure”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 7, Eul’s 1 through 25 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff should have made an illegal solicitation in order to suspend the business of this case; (b) the Plaintiff offered money and valuables in relation to the implementation of the contract in order to restrict the participation in the instant disposition; (c) the bid and contract with the E-Landscaping is not located in the Busan Metropolitan City Accounting Property; (d) there was no illegal solicitation in delivery of the instant money and valuables; and (c) the time when the Plaintiff delivered money and valuables to D before the E-Landscaping was concluded. In light of the above, the Plaintiff offered money and valuables to D while making an illegal solicitation in relation to the performance of the E-Landscaping.