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 company that manufactures, sells, etc., manufactured, or retailed foods.

B. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff’s executive officers and employees of B, C, and D (hereinafter “B, etc.”) were indicted as a violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Agricultural and Fishery Products, namely, “B, etc. conspired to purchase the Republic of Korea Kim 179,720km from August 20, 201 to November 7, 201, and sold the country of origin to correctional institutions, etc. by mixing the country of origin with the domestic kimchi, and by combining the country of origin with the domestic kimchi.”

C. On December 4, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the participation in a tendering procedure for six months against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act at the time of performing the following contract, and caused damage to the State by such unlawful act” on the basis of the investigation data and the details of prosecution against B, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). Contract number EF G GH IJ K L Ba Kim (7-9) Pool Kim (7-9) (7-9) (4) Pool Kim (10-1) (4) Pool Kim Kim (4) Pool Kim (3-4) Pool Kim Kim (4) (4) Pool Kim Kim (5-6 (4) (5-6) (4) Pool Kimchi (7-9) (1 area) Pool Kim (1 area) (1 area) Mochi (1 area) 1 / 10 / 10 / 1 area), without dispute, the facts that there is no dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of arguments as a whole.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion ① The plaintiff did not have any fact of mixing the Korean kimchi with kimchi in the military.

② According to Article 76(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Sept. 23, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), where several improper enterprisers have committed a violation, the Defendant was subject to the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the restriction on the one of them according to the grave restriction criteria.

③ The instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality.

(b) the existence of the reasons for the disposition (the plaintiff’s assertion).