beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant’s design service contract and technology use contract 1) established a framework plan for the maintenance of the passenger zone around January 1, 1996, and completed the 1172-day maintenance of the passenger sewage terminal on or around December 22, 2000 at the time of the construction of the 40,000 cubic meters of the facility capacity and treating sewage generated from the Posi’s industrial complex and its surrounding areas for the purpose of preparing for the increase in the amount of sewage generation and improving the water quality of sewage, and changing the existing facilities to the treatment facilities for the improvement of the water quality of sewage (hereinafter “Tan”) on June 22, 2005.
(2) On September 22, 2005, the Defendant entered into a technical proposal service contract and working design service contract with the Defendant on the basis of the extension of the final sewage treatment plant and the extension of the final sewage treatment plant, and the extension of the final sewage treatment plant. The Defendant designated the scope of technical proposal: 18,000 cubic meters/day and the existing facility 40,000 cubic meters/day treatment method, respectively, to submit a technical proposal for the selection of the final sewage treatment plant (No. 2005-74 of the final taxi notice), and the HETT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FTT”) as the technical proposal for the selection of the final sewage treatment plant (No. 2005-74 of the final taxi notice). On October 6, 2005, the Defendant notified the Defendant that the Defendant had the performance guarantee liability for the installation of the final sewage treatment plant, and us should submit the technical proposal to the Defendant at the time of exceeding 100 performance and maintenance performance guarantee as presented in the technical proposal.
3) The Defendant review the technical proposal submitted by the off-line and three other companies, and review the technical proposal and use mBR, in which the Mod-equcing Batch Reactor is in possession of the technology, “A2O suspected of using the Moequ Squc Reactor,” and the non-U.S. non-conxic.