부정당업자제재처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion even if all of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the statements in Gap evidence (including the serial number) submitted in the court of first instance were examined, it is justified.
Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second part of the judgment of the first instance court is that the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25140, Feb. 5, 2014) is “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act” (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25140, Feb. 5, 2014).
The phrase “B No. 7” shall be added to the grounds for recognition of the second sentence of the first instance judgment.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.