1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Ulsan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sullar Construction”) constitutes a joint contractor with the Plaintiff, etc., who mainly engages in telecommunications design business, etc. for the purpose of obtaining orders from the Defendant for the construction of the Sungnam Medical Center ordered by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction”). The said construction was awarded a bid by participating in a bid for concluding a contract for the construction of the Sungnam Medical Center in the name of the joint contractor, and entered into a contract for the construction of the Sungnam Medical Center with the Plaintiff, etc. on November 14, 2013, together with the Plaintiff, etc.

B. However, on April 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a limitation on the qualification for participation in bidding for six months against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform the electric design part, which was implemented by sharing the aforementioned construction contract, without any justifiable reason. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Ulsan Construction Co., Ltd., without the Plaintiff’s consent, prepared documents as if the Plaintiff were to form a joint supply and demand organization with the Plaintiff, and participated in the bidding. The part of the Plaintiff’s share under the contract, which is the part of the Plaintiff’s actual construction, was not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, and was promised to take measures to avoid any problem to the Plaintiff by changing the contractor to A after the conclusion of the contract at the repeated request of Ulsan Construction, which is anticipated that the successful bid may be null and void. Moreover, the non-execution of the contract of this case was derived from the negligence that the Defendant did not discover the circumstance that, in the process of determining the successful bidder of the contract of this case, the disqualified Plaintiff, who is the bidder, intends to perform the part of the contract, instead of the Plaintiff, is the one who is the bidder.