1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing sanctions against the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates fire-fighting facility design business, fire-fighting system management business, and fire-fighting supervision business.

B. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant is called “instant service” (hereinafter “instant service”) of the fire-fighting systems for rental apartments in Yangcheon-gu, 2013.

The tender was announced. The main contents of the bid are as follows. 1. Design price for the service (including value added tax) for the service-based service (39,347,000 fire-fighting systems inspection services for rental apartments in the Yangcheon-si area in 2013) shall be until August 31, 2013 from the date of concluding the contract.

6. The principal tender of qualification examination is the total tender, which is subject to the qualification examination.

7. A person subject to the examination of eligibility for submission of documents shall submit the documents within seven days after receipt of a request for submission and notification.

8. The method of determining the successful tenderer shall be as the successful tenderer in order of the persons who have tendered at least 87.745% of the budget price among those who have tendered at least the budget price, and the qualification examination shall be conducted, and the total score of which is at least 95 points

If there are two or more persons who have tendered at the same price in determining the successful tenderer, the successful tenderer shall be determined as the highest score as a result of the evaluation of management status, and if the management status evaluation score is the same, the successful tenderer

C. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff participated in the bid of the instant service and was selected as a person eligible for the first priority examination.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, in addition to the instant service, participated in the bidding of “ApP fire-fighting system self-inspection services” (hereinafter “instant related services”), and was selected as the successful bidder. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for self-inspection of fire-fighting systems with ApPD Co., Ltd. and ApPD.

E. Accordingly, on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written waiver of the qualification examination to the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s bid for the instant service was insufficient human resources to perform the service as a successful bidder.”

F. The defendant is justified by the plaintiff.