1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2011, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, which belongs to the defendant, announced the announcement of the following through the comprehensive national electronic procurement system:

Tender title: Method of tender by general competition - Total amount of construction: Contract type - Method of construction by general final contract: Qualification examination system

B. On November 16, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a purchase contract with the Defendant to purchase the goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the terms that the contract amount of KRW 1,047,00,000, and the contract deposit of KRW 104,700,000, and the date of delivery from December 20, 201 to December 20, 2012, with respect to the items other than the parts for repair of the 1,047,000,000 and 23 items.

C. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a revised contract that changed the contract amount to KRW 977,651,424, and the contract deposit to KRW 97,765,142 due to the reduction of contract quantity. The Plaintiff concluded the performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company and submitted it to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company in lieu of the payment of the contract deposit.

On December 10, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a quality assurance plan to the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality, and submitted the circuit assembly [the stock number of which is 598-14617523” among the contract goods of this case, the Plaintiff is “the goods of this case”.

B notified the Plaintiff to directly manufacture and supply them, and the Defendant consented thereto.

E. However, on November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff determined that the supply of the instant goods through the manufacture and purchase of the instant goods is impossible as a matter of encryption code, and requested the Defendant to cancel the request for procurement and modify the content of the contract. On November 20, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to cancel the purchase and modify the terms of the contract.

F. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to make a modified contract for the instant goods and notified the Defendant that the performance of the contract was impossible due to force majeure, etc. if the modified contract is not in force majeure.

G. The Defendant on March 2013