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 Defendant was a local government-invested public corporation established by Gyeongbuk-do pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Local Public Enterprises Act, and was selected by the Gyeongbuk-do Governor as the project implementer of the construction project of Gyeongbuk-do, which approved and publicly notified the development plan on February 29, 2012. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant entrusted the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service with the execution of the construction project of Gyeongbuk-do, Gyeongbuk-do, Seoul-do, with the approval of the implementation plan of the phase project on July 31, 2012.

B. The Administrator of the Public Procurement Service, following a tendering procedure, determined a joint supply and demand organization consisting of the Plaintiff (51%) and the Jungan Construction Co., Ltd. (49% of shares), as successful bidders, and concluded a construction contract with the said joint supply and demand organization with the total construction cost of KRW 34,947,060,893 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

C. After that, on February 8, 2013, the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service notified the Defendant that “The Plaintiff’s employees A et al. conspired with the employees of the service company entrusted with computerized operation of the review program at the minimum price by the Public Procurement Service in collusion with the employees of the service company entrusted with computerized operation of the review program, and that the Plaintiff was selected as the final successful bidder (hereinafter “instant violation”), which is deemed to constitute a ground for restricting participation in bidding.”

The Defendant received the result of the completion inspection on February 20, 2013 and notified the Plaintiff of the return of the advance payment, etc. on April 5, 2013, and received a written opinion from the Plaintiff on April 9, 2013. On April 16, 2013, Article 31 of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”) and Article 92 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that the Defendant constitutes “a person who forges, alters, or wrongfully uses documents relating to tendering and contract, or a person who submits false documents,” thereby constituting “a person who forges, alters, or wrongfully uses documents relating to tendering and contract,” 1 month of the restriction on participation in unjust enterprisers (from April 25, 2013 to March 24, 2014).