입찰참가자격제한처분취소
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.
The reasoning for this case is as follows, the court, which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, shall amend part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case, and shall refer to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the plaintiff as to the allegations made at the court of first instance. Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of
[Revision] The part in the judgment of the court of first instance, from 2th to 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as described below in the following box.
The Plaintiff becomes final and conclusive to participate in the instant service at the stage of submitting the start system for the proper implementation of the instant contract, and ought to be deemed as bearing contractual obligations to submit to the Defendant a list of participating technicians who can commence the instant service with the Defendant’s approval.
However, since L, R, etc. among participating researchers indicated in “the current status of the participating researchers and the field of participation,” which are part of the business performance plan submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on June 7, 2018, did not have expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to participate in the instant service as the researcher, submission of “the current status of the participating researchers and the field of participation” in which the Plaintiff stated the aforementioned L, R, etc. as the participating researchers to the Defendant is deemed to violate the contractual obligation to submit the list of participating researchers.
Part 8, 15 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the plaintiff" to 9 pages 1 are as shown in the following box.
In order to properly implement the instant contract, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is obligated to submit a resume, certificate of employment, etc. to the Defendant to verify whether the participating technician is a person with experience and skills necessary to perform the instant service at the stage of submitting the start system.
However, the curriculum of E of the participating researcher submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on June 19, 2018 is written as a professor of F University law, unlike the actual one, and V.