1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement with the Defendant on the goods “B” with the following terms (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Plaintiff paid the contract bond by submitting a guarantee issued by the CFC.

(1) Contract amount: KRW 762,245,161, contract deposit; KRW 76,224,516; ② The amount of the first payment shall be December 18, 2015; the second payment period; February 19, 2016; and the third payment period shall be April 20, 2016; and the fourth payment period shall be October 11, 2016; and

B. Although the Plaintiff had supplied goods equivalent to KRW 672,898,629, the total price of which was 88% by the second payment period, the Plaintiff supplied only the goods equivalent to KRW 231,574,762 until April 19, 2016, despite the Defendant’s three demands for payment.

C. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant performed only about 30% of the total quantity of the supplied goods upon the Plaintiff’s expiration of the delivery period, and notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract will be terminated and the contract bond will be reverted to the National Treasury on the grounds that the liquidated damages for delay would amount to the contract deposit amount. On April 22, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for the contract deposit with CF with CF.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the defendant violated the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party as shown in the attached Form, and unilaterally terminated the contract of this case without unilaterally disregarding and not accepting the increase and decrease of the contract amount and the extension of the payment period requested by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's cancellation of the contract and the disposition to revert the contract bond to the National Treasury are unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion is without merit, since there is

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.