beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.25 2016구합20250

부정당업자 제재처분 취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s improper businessman for one year (from January 14, 2016 to January 13, 2017) against the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The defendant is an enterprise that was established in around 1983 and supplies natural gas to the people, and is under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Act”).

) As a market-based public corporation designated as a public entity under Article 4, Italy B (hereinafter referred to as “B”)

(2) On December 1, 200, the Plaintiff received a letter of commission from the Plaintiff on December 1, 200, which recognized the right to exclusively import and sell goods in the Republic of Korea as to the parts, etc. used for repair of the pressure apparatus supplied by B to the Republic of Korea from five overseas manufacturers, and at the same time, at the same time, he/she received parts, etc. used for repair from B to the Defendant under a negotiated contract by importing parts, etc. used for repair of the pressure apparatus supplied by B to the Defendant.

B. Inasmuch as the instant transfer agreement and the certificate of import declaration completion are discovered, the Plaintiff is entitled to a negotiated contract under which materials, etc. used to repair the current voltage period are supplied five times each year from March 14, 2011 to May 26, 2015 with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

In the process, “C” is signed by the B company’s agent, and the term of the contract is indicated from January 4, 2010 to January 4, 2015, which indicated from January 5, 2015 to January 4, 2020, as evidence proving the exclusive right of representation of B company. The term “Agency A” is collectively referred to as “each of the two contracts of this case”.

(2) However, from June 22, 2015, the Defendant submitted each of the following documents to the Defendant.

7. By October, 100, while conducting a self-inspection of the actual status of contracts, the company requested B to verify each of the contracts in this case, and B appears to have forged each of the contracts in this case, and the Plaintiff is a transfer of B company in Korea.