beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on October 21, 2015 for the purpose of wholesale business, retail business, etc. of construction materials.
B. Pursuant to Article 9-2 of the Procurement Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant first designated eco-friendly carbon packaging materials “B,” “C,” and “D” produced by the Plaintiff as excellent products on June 24, 201 and designated “E” and “F” as excellent products, and extended the period of designation by June 24, 2017, respectively.
C. On February 3, 2017, pursuant to Article 26(1)3 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), the Defendant entered into a negotiated contract with the Plaintiff on February 3, 2017, under which the Defendant supplied the goods from the Plaintiff to each of the demanding administrative agencies designated as the Defendant on the basis of a total area of 141,00 square meters, contract amount of 11,363,40,000 square meters, contract period of 11,363,40,000 square meters, contract period of 17,50 to June 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff supplied goods under the said contract to each of the demanding administrative agencies (hereinafter “instant contract”).
As a result of surveying the supply volume of the goods supplied as above, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff supplied coal packaging materials manufactured in a way different from those used in the goods without supplying the goods designated as excellent goods of eco-friendly coal packaging materials by the Defendant, and issued a disposition of restricting the qualification of unjust enterprisers (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with Article 27(1)1 of the State Contracts Act and Article 76 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on January 11, 2018, and Article 76(3)(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff conducted a contract in accordance with Article 27(1)1 of the State Contracts Act and Article 76(3)(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff conducted a fraudulent or unfair act or committed an unlawful act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 9, and Eul.