1. The Plaintiff’s liability for damages arising from the termination of the contract with multiple suppliers of air circulation period against the Defendant is KRW 72,00,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 2016, pursuant to the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Public Procurement Service (hereinafter “Public Procurement Service”), under which the contract amount is KRW 4,835,735,00, the contract amount is KRW 120,768,380, the contract deposit is KRW 120,768,380, and the contract period is from July 14, 2016 to April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

According to the instant contract, when the Plaintiff fails to perform its contractual obligations without justifiable grounds, the said contract bond shall be reverted to the Defendant (Article 51(1) and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act, Article 12(3) of the State Contracts Act, and Article 12(3) of the State Contracts Act (hereinafter “the State Contracts Act”).

B. For the payment of the instant contract bond, the Plaintiff issued a guarantee insurance certificate from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. to the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service, which provides that the amount of the deposit shall be KRW 120,768,380, and the contract period shall be from July 14, 2016 to April 30, 2018, and submitted it to the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service.

C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff requested the supply of a heat exchangeer (value of KRW 10,680,020) required for the installation of the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Winter Games 2018 and the mechanical equipment construction of the stadium auxiliary stadium. However, the Plaintiff, a production company, was unable to supply the heat exchangeer due to the bankruptcy of the Jinjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “sinis”), and submitted a written waiver of the supply of the heat exchangeer to Gangwon-do on February 6, 2017.

On February 23, 2017, the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service confirmed that the performance of the air circulation period under the instant contract was not possible to the Plaintiff, and on March 9, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service of the purport that the delivery of the air circulation period under the instant contract is difficult due to the default of authenticity, which is a manufacturing company.

The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service shall take March 15, 2014 to the Plaintiff.