beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Presumed facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply sports facilities (hereinafter “first contract”) with a contract amount of KRW 3,320,850,00 on May 11, 2012, the contract period from May 11, 2012 to March 31, 2014 (the extended contract period to April 30, 2014), the contract deposit of KRW 49,812,750, and the supply of sports facilities as contract deposit of KRW 1,714,287,00 on December 4, 2013, and the contract period of KRW 1,714,287,00,00 from September 28, 2012 to September 30, 2014 (the extended contract period to November 15, 2014), and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff as contract deposit of KRW 17,142,870 (hereinafter “contract”).
B. Articles 1 and 2 contracts (hereinafter “instant contracts”) correspond to multiple suppliers contracts under the laws on the procurement business, and upon conclusion of a contract with multiple suppliers, the contracting company posts contract goods on the national master shopping mall site (htp://shoping.g. 2b.go.r.) established by the Public Procurement Service and the procuring entity, if the procuring entity requests perusal and delivery of the contract company’s product information in the above shopping mall, is actually in progress.
C. However, on April 17, 2014, the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of direct production, and the Plaintiff supplied 7 sports facilities and 6 sports facilities to the Defendant during the revocation period of direct production confirmation.
On October 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sought to terminate the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligation of direct production on the ground that the Plaintiff was a party; (b) KRW 42,856,785, excluding KRW 6,955,965, out of the contract deposit under Article 12(3) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State was a Party (hereinafter “State Contracts Act”); (c) KRW 42,85,785, excluding KRW 7,850,199, excluding KRW 7,850,199, out of the contract deposit under Article 2 contract deposit; and (c) accordingly, claimed to demand
【In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any).