1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a quasi-governmental institution established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act for the development, power generation, transmission, transformation and related business of electric resources.

B. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for electric distribution works with respect to the electric distribution works ordered by Defendant B’s regional headquarters (hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents are as follows.

Agreement for the Cooperative in Power Distribution Corporation

2. Contract title: High-tensionB Corporation for the branch offices C in the District Headquarters B, 2017.

3. Area in charge: D (Ei, Fri, Gri, Hri, Iri, J) , K Myeon, L, M surface, N in the area in charge of regional division.

4. Contract unit cost: 25,711,937 won;

5. Estimated contract amount: 3,723,043,600 won; the contract period: January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 (730 days);

C. On November 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of restricting the participation in a company for six months pursuant to Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, as the counter-party to the contract for high-tension B branch C in 2017, was offered a bribe of KRW 65 million for the purpose of budgetary allocation and construction convenience” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 9, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to the Administrative Procedures Act, in a case where an administrative agency holds a hearing, the administrative agency should give prior notice to the parties ten days prior to the beginning of the hearing, but the Defendant sent a public notice on the hearing procedure held on October 12, 2018 prior to the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on October 5, 2018, and thus, the said disposition is procedural error.

B. The Plaintiff is not related to the offering of an O’s bribe, which the Defendant asserted as the ground for disposition, and does not engage in any misconduct as well as in good faith from the bid to the implementation of the instant contract.