beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.07.06 2017구합58441

입찰참가자격제한처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of general construction business, manufacturing steel products and steel products business, manufacturing and selling construction materials, etc.

B. On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff refers to a contract system under which two or more parties are the parties to a contract, where it is deemed necessary to satisfy the diverse demands of each end-user institution in purchasing goods commonly required by each end-user institution based on Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Procurement of Multi-Party Suppliers, based on the method of installing at a place designated by each end-user institution, the contract amount of KRW 4.5 million from November 4, 2015 to September 30, 2017, the contract amount of KRW 4.575 million, the contract deposit of KRW 228,750,000, the contract deposit of which is to be supplied, from November 4, 2015 to September 30, 2017.

When multiple suppliers enter into a contract, the contract shall be implemented by means of supplying the goods of the other party to the contract to the general procurement site, and when each procuring entity requests the supply of registered goods to the procuring entity that the other party requested to supply the goods in response to the supply request.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). On July 27, 2016, the instant contract entered into a contract with each of the following: (a) the quantity of the goods supplied in the instant case to KRW 60,00; (b) the contract amount to KRW 9.15,00,000; and (c) the contract deposit to KRW 457,50,000,000.

C. On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff manufactured 34 goods of this case at the intersection designated by the said procuring entity upon the request of the Sungdong Road Office of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a procuring entity.

On October 31, 2016, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant goods installed by the Plaintiff, while conducting the performance test on the instant goods.