2. The debtor should not enter into a contract for the production and installation of Nowon History Park sculptures with a person other than the applicant or the next-order subscriber in relation to “public offering for production and installation of Nowon History Park sculptures” as stated in paragraph 1 or perform a contract for the production and installation of Nowon History Park sculptures.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligor;

According to the records, each of the following facts is substantiated.

A. At the time of the Korean War, the debtor-dong-gun decided to manufacture and install a memorial tower (hereinafter “instant memorial tower”) which is a sculpture to commemorate the civilian victims who have made a sacrifice in the Yellow-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, North Korea (hereinafter “instant memorial tower”) from the 675-6 Japanese War.

B. Accordingly, on December 17, 2008, the debtor entered into a contract for the production and installation of the memorial tower of this case by negotiation as stipulated in the "Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party", and on December 17, 2008, the debtor announced a written request for proposal (hereinafter "written request for proposal of this case"). The main contents of the above written request for proposal include ① the person who subscribed to the recruitment of this case by March 5, 2009, including the model, design drawing, and specifications of proposal. ② The evaluation committee selected a number of potential concessionaires to enter into the contract for the production and installation of the memorial tower of this case by examining the written proposal as above, and ② the obligor shall negotiate with the potential concessionaire in the order of priority determined by the evaluation committee, and ③ the obligor shall negotiate with the potential concessionaire to enter into a negotiation with the negotiation with the potential concessionaire in accordance with the order of priority determined by the evaluation committee to enter into force the negotiation with the potential concessionaire.

C. On the other hand, the creditor subscribed to the invitation of this case, and submitted a proposal for the production and installation of the memorial tower of this case to the debtor in accordance with the contents of the written request for proposal of this case. On March 20, 2009, the debtor selected the creditor as the priority negotiation target and notified the creditor that the above selection will be commenced with the creditor from March 23, 2009.

D. However, on April 1, 2009, the debtor held an evaluation committee again and notified the creditor that he would no longer proceed with the negotiations with the creditor on the ground that the composition that the creditor proposed the production and installation of the composition through a proposal (hereinafter “the bid of this case”) is similar to the re-convening tower (hereinafter “convening tower”) which was already produced and installed by the creditor in the Chungcheongbuk-gun, the creditor revoked the decision designating the creditor as the priority negotiation object, and immediately thereafter, he re-designated the non-applicant who is the next priority priority negotiation object as the priority negotiation object, and at the same time, at the same time, re-designated the non-applicant who is the next priority negotiation object as the creditor was revoked the decision to designate the creditor as the priority negotiation object.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Creditor

A creditor is selected as a priority negotiation subject by the debtor after subscribing to the public invitation of this case publicly notified by the debtor for the production and installation of the memorial tower of this case. Thus, the creditor is in a position to negotiate with the debtor for the conclusion of the contract for the production and installation of the memorial tower of this case. The debtor asserts that the creditor does not have the status as a priority negotiation object any longer, and seeks to negotiate with the non-applicant or other third party who is the next priority negotiation party, to make a provisional disposition such as the written order, in order to preserve the creditor's status.

(2) The debtor

In selecting a creditor as a priority negotiation object, the debtor's evaluation committee has made its decision, so the revocation of the decision can be freely made at the discretion of the evaluation committee. Furthermore, the creditor's bid of this case, which is similar to the conflict of this case, which is another type of article already produced and installed in the Cheongbuk-gun, is similar to the creditor's bid of this case, and the debtor can legitimately lose the creditor's status as a priority negotiation object when there are such reasons. Thus, the creditor's status as a priority negotiation object was legally extinguished by the debtor's evaluation committee's revocation decision. Thus, the creditor's assertion on the premise that the creditor still holds the status as a priority negotiation object is without merit.

(b) Markets:

(1) First, according to the above facts, the creditor is selected and notified as the priority bidder for the execution of the above contract by subscribing to the instant solicitation for the conclusion of the contract for the manufacture and installation of the memorial tower in this case. In the instant proposal request publicly announced at the time of the above solicitation, it is recognized that the debtor, in accordance with the negotiation order determined by the Evaluation Committee, shall proceed with the prior negotiation with the prior negotiation partner, and only when the prior negotiation is not effected with the prior negotiation partner, the creditor shall have the obligation to proceed with the negotiation for the conclusion of the contract for the manufacture and installation of the memorial tower in this case to the creditor, who is the first priority bidder, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) Next, as alleged by the debtor, whether the creditor loses his/her status as a priority negotiating subject and the debtor does not bear any obligation to proceed with the negotiations any longer for the creditor.

(A) According to the above facts, the debtor revoked the decision of the evaluation committee to select a priority bidder and notifies the creditor thereof. However, as seen earlier, as long as the debtor selected and notified the creditor who subscribed to the negotiations to conclude the contract to manufacture and set up the memorial tower of this case as the priority negotiation target and the debtor did so, the debtor, as a result, bears judicial and external obligations to proceed to the negotiations to conclude the contract to set up the memorial tower of this case against the creditor who is the priority negotiation target, and as such, barring any special circumstance that the debtor or the debtor should cancel, terminate, or cancel the above judicial legal relation or invalidate it, even if the evaluation committee made a decision to lose the creditor's status, such circumstance alone does not immediately extinguish the creditor's external rights to the debtor in the above judicial relation.

(B) In addition, according to the records, the written request for proposal of this case is acknowledged that "(1) where false facts or material deficiencies are discovered in the documents, etc. submitted by the subscriber, ② when an unfair act was committed in order to significantly affect the examination, ③ when the materials which were elected prior to other public offering were submitted, ④ when a person is not qualified to subscribe, ⑤ when a person is not qualified to subscribe, and ④ when a person is in violation of copyright, etc.," and even if the written request for proposal of this case submitted by the representative creditor is similar to the shock of this case that the creditor himself produced and installed in the past, it cannot be immediately recognized that such similarity falls under any one of the above grounds for disqualification, and there is no proof that there is other circumstances such as cancellation, termination, or cancellation or invalidation of judicial legal relations between the creditor and the debtor in this case.

(3) If so, the creditor still holds the status that the debtor can proceed to the negotiations for the manufacture and establishment of the memorial tower in this case, and has the right to demand the debtor to participate in the above negotiations. Thus, the preserved right of the petition in this case shall be recognized. As seen earlier, as the debtor again designates the applicant who is the next priority priority negotiating party as the priority negotiating party, and shows the attitude that the debtor will proceed to the negotiations for the conclusion of the contract for the manufacture and installation of the memorial tower in this case, the need to preserve the application in this case shall also be recognized.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the creditor's application of this case is well-grounded, it shall be accepted and decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)