Representative Director 000

Law Firm 00 (Attorney in Charge 000)

Representative, 000

Law Firm 00 (Attorney in Charge 000)

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

A. On December 15, 2011, the Defendant issued a public notice of electronic bidding (hereinafter “instant public notice of tender”) by virtue of the sale of the dredging land for the storage of C in accordance with the Military Notice No. 2011-605, and the main contents are as follows.

1) Payment and Reversion of bid bond;

If a successful bidder fails to conclude a contract within five days after receipt of the notice of successful tender award, the tender guarantee;

shall be attributed to B, and shall be subject to restrictions on participation in a tendering procedure as an improper businessman.

2) Selection of successful bidders

Peremptory price among persons who tender a unit price more than the budget price (unit price) as an effective tender.

The minimum desired quantity per person (corporation) shall be 468,360 square meters, which shall be determined in the order of the vehicle tendered.

(Total Amount of tender).

(iii) the invalidity of a tender;

Articles 39 and 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party

Article 42 of the Regulations, and Article 42 of the Regulations shall be based on the terms and conditions of members and the rules on the observance of Internet participants.

B. The Plaintiff submitted a tender with a bid amount of KRW 8,200, bid amount of KRW 468,360,000 on December 22, 201, according to the instant public notice of tender, and a bid amount of KRW 192,030,000 on the same day, and the bid bond of KRW 192,030,000 on the same day was paid to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D.”). The representative director of the Plaintiff at the same time submitted a tender amount of KRW 12,60,000, the bid amount of KRW 468,360,00 on the same day, and paid KRW 295,10,000 on the same day.

C. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant began opening of 10:00, and as a result, D’s highest price was determined as a successful tenderer, and the Plaintiff was found to have followed D’s second highest price.

D. Although the Defendant notified D of the successful tender on December 26, 2011, the Defendant lost the status of the successful bidder by failing to comply with the contract within five days from the date D received the notice of the successful bid price for the contract implementation period. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, and evidence No. 5-1 to 3, No. 5-2, No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In the public notice of the bid of this case, "the successful bidder shall be determined in order of the highest bidder from among the persons who bid at a unit price above the expected price (unit price) as a valid bid." This purport is that in the order of bid prices, in case where there are circumstances, such as where a bidder at the highest price determined the order of priority, such as entering into a contract or losing the status of a successful bidder, a person who participated in the bidding at the next highest price shall naturally succeed to the status of a successful bidder. Since the D who bid at the highest price at the highest price in the bidding of this case loses the status of a successful bidder by waiver of contract, the plaintiff who participated in the bidding at the next highest price shall be in the status of a successful bidder. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is in the status of a successful bidder on the grounds that the successful bidder is to be determined through retender.

3. Determination

The decision of a successful tenderer under Paragraph 6 of the tender announcement of this case is "to be decided in order of the highest bidder among persons who bid a unit price above the expected price (unit price)", and there is no express provision as to whether the next highest bidder succeeds to the status of a successful tenderer or re-tenders to determine a new successful tenderer if a successful tenderer loses his status as a successful tenderer due to the failure to conclude the contract.

(1) However, Article 10 of the Public Notice of Tender in this case provides that "the tenderer shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance after confirming the quantity and quality of dredged soil in question," and Article 13 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the highest price for bidding shall not be determined as a successful tenderer in the bidding-related Acts and subordinate statutes (the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, public property and Commodity Management, etc.) and the tender notice, sales contract, dredging contract, special terms and conditions of the contract for the bidding, rules on the observance of the participants shall participate in the bidding, and shall be determined." Article 13 (1) of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party provides that "the highest price for bidding shall not be determined as a successful tenderer in the bidding-related Acts and subordinate statutes, in which case the tenderer becomes a successful tenderer, who shall not automatically be determined as a successful tenderer in the bidding-related procedure and shall not be determined as a successful tenderer in order of 10th bidding price."

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the public official belonging to the defendant gives public trust to the next highest bidder by explaining that the highest bidder would succeed to the status of the successful bidder if the highest bidder renounces his position, and thus, the plaintiff's trust in the status of the successful bidder should be protected, and that denying the status of the original successful bidder is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s official duty personnel explained that the highest bidder’s status would be succeeded to the status of the successful bidder if the highest bidder renounces his status. Moreover, even if the Defendant’s official duty personnel explained otherwise as the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff, the next highest bidder, has acquired the status of the successful bidder in the bidding procedure of this case conducted by the Defendant as the main agent of the private economy, unlike the objective meaning of the public notice of tender in the bidding procedure of this case, to make a decision on the same position as the other party as the main agent of the private economy. Thus, this part of the main text cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Freeboard Kim

x. Jark Sick Number