수의계약 결격대상 통보처분 취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement with the Defendant for content development for remote job training as of July 1, 2015, the date of commencement, and December 21, 2015, which was until December 21, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant service contract”). B.
However, the Plaintiff completed the inspection on January 29, 2016, past 39 days from the total completion date stipulated in the instant service contract.
C. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constitutes disqualified enterprises for negotiated contracts for three months from February 4, 2016 to May 3, 2016 in accordance with the Procedure for Negotiated Contracts under Chapter 5 of the Rules of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (Rules 40 of the Rules of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs; hereinafter “Rules of the instant case”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff had delayed the tender, contract, and implementation thereof for at least ten days and imposed damages for delay.
(hereinafter “instant notice”). D.
The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant notification on February 12, 2016, but the Defendant sent a reply to the effect that the objection is dismissed to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The instant notice constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, and the Plaintiff has the interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the invalidation or revocation thereof, and the instant notice is unlawful for the following reasons.
B. Inasmuch as the instant notice is an erosional administrative disposition issued by the established rules without basis under the superior laws and regulations, it is null and void as it goes against the principle of statutory reservation.
(State) Any claim. (c)
The latter part of Article 90(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter referred to as “Local Contract Act”) provides that “If it is deemed that a contract performance has been delayed due to a cause not attributable to a contracting party, the relevant number of days shall not be included in the number of delayed days.” Thus, the Plaintiff