1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase contract with the Defendant to manufacture and supply 297,690km in KRW 202,122,579 (hereinafter “instant contract”) jointly with the Yanjin Kimchi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The letter of request for purchase of Kimchi issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff according to the instant contract states that the standard of quality of finished products shall be PH 4.2 to 5.4 (4 to 10 months) at low temperature (0 to 5°C) for at least seven days.

C. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied 3,485 km to the required group, but was returned on the ground that the result of the pH inspection (4.08) falls short of the quality standards.

On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff produced kimchi 5.8 of PH 5.8, and then created kimchi pH 4.5 mixed with returned kimchi and re-supplyed it to the required group on May 15, 2015.

The Plaintiff supplied 2,930km on May 18, 2015, but was returned on the ground that the result of the pH inspection (4.14) fails to meet the quality standards.

Accordingly, on May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff produced kimchi 5.8 of PH 5.8, and created kimchi mix it with returned kimchi and supplied it to the required group on May 22, 2015.

E. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition restricting the qualification to participate in bidding for six months against the Plaintiff on the ground that the act of supplying the excreta returned by the Plaintiff by mixing it with other kimchi constitutes Article 76(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “National Contract Act”), and Article 76 [Attachment 2] subparagraph 3(b) of the Enforcement Rule.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s re-delivery of facts regarding the grounds for disposition 1 by the Plaintiff is improper or unjust in performing the contract as provided by Article 76(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party.