1. The Plaintiff’s bid to select B apartment cleaning service providers conducted by the Defendant on January 8, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant, as the Director of the Management Office of B Apartment, announced the announcement of the following contents in order to select a business entity for cleaning the above apartment (eight environmental dissipatory).

-Working Hours: Week (09:00~ 16:00), occupied time (11:30 to 13:00), Saturdays (00 to 12:00) - Contract Period: February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 (1 year): 10 percent of the bid amount as a cash-backed bond or a letter of guarantee, along with a bid offer - A written estimate, payment plan (based on the minimum wage rate in 2016) for a tender: submission of a written estimate, payment plan (based on the minimum wage in 2016)

B. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder by bidding at KRW 100,855,680 of the bid amount.

At the time, the plaintiff submitted to the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. a guarantee of the performance guarantee insurance contract between the insured and the defendant, instead of KRW 11,000,000.

C. In accordance with the above public announcement of tender, the Plaintiff calculated the bid amount based on the wage payment plan below the minimum wage amount by calculating it as 5 hours by mistake of the employee in charge, even though the daily working hours of the US dollars are 5.5 hours.

After finding it in the process of concluding a contract, the Plaintiff submitted a written waiver of tender to the Defendant on January 29, 2016.

The defendant claimed the payment of the above insurance money (tender deposit) to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on the ground of the waiver of the plaintiff's bidding

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, Gap 10 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and determination are in violation of Article 31 of the Guidelines for the Selection of Housing Management Operator and Business Operator. The plaintiff's tender itself is null and void since the plaintiff's bid price is below the minimum wage amount when based on the quotation and the salary payment plan submitted along with a tender document. The plaintiff's bid is erroneous in the defendant's selection of the plaintiff as the successful bidder by neglecting the qualification examination even though it is disqualified for the plaintiff.