1. The Defendant’s disposition to suspend the qualification for three months against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The status of the parties is a corporation established for the purpose of the electrical construction business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of the development, transmission, transformation, and related business of electric resources under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act.

B. 1) On November 9, 2016, the Defendant bid for the purchase of goods for the materials for the physical security improvement works at the Maritime Power Headquarters (hereinafter “instant bid”)

(2) At the time of the public announcement of the instant tender, the Plaintiff submitted a bid price of KRW 14,840,000 to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2016. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the bid price was awarded on December 12, 2016.

3) On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written waiver of tender to the Defendant. (c) The Defendant’s disposition imposing the restriction on the Defendant’s qualification for participation in bidding was held on February 24, 2017, and on March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff did not conclude a contract without justifiable grounds on the ground that the contract was not concluded without justifiable grounds even though the Plaintiff was selected as the successful bidder of the instant tender (hereinafter “Public Institutions Management Act”).

Article 39(2), Article 15 of the Regulations on Contracting Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions, and the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”).

) Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 76(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act imposed a restriction on participation in bidding for six months (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no ground to dispose of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 intends to describe “14,840,000 won” in the instant bidding, but, in light of the estimated price subject to regular speculation as determined by the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered the bidding price as “14,840,000 won” as the number of employees who enter the bidding.