공사낙찰자지위확인 및 손해배상청구의소
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of this court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this court’s reasoning is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 2: “No. 1 through 9” in Part 12; “No. 2, No. 2, No. 4, 5, 6, and No. 9” in Part 13; “No. 2, No. 4 through 6, 9, and 12” in Part 13; and “No. 2, No. 4 through 6, 12” in Part 3 of Part 12; and “Public Notice of tender for Construction” in Part 3 of Part 12, the following shall be added to the “Public Notice of Construction”
9. Determination of estimated price and successful bidder;
(b) This Corporation shall submit tenders in total, and shall determine as successful bidders a person whose total horizontal point is at least 95 points in order of the person who has submitted tenders at the lowest price above the lowest bid rate set out in the Criteria for Qualification Screening of Rules of Contracts which are below the estimated price.
ARTICLE 1-
B. Paragraph 7 above shall be referred to as “each of the following,” and the Defendant Hospital shall be referred to as “I” a corporation subject to the second priority examination (hereinafter referred to as “I”).
On May 31, 2018, after the examination of qualification for A, entered into a contract with I for construction works of this case.
The instant construction was completed until the completion inspection on March 28, 2019.
“”
2. Around April 27, 2018, the Defendant Hospital asserted that the Plaintiff gave 15 points out of construction experience to the Plaintiff, and actually determined the Plaintiff as the successful bidder of the instant tender. However, around May 18, 2018, the Defendant Hospital reduced the Plaintiff’s construction experience points to 8.2 points in violation of the details of the instant tender announcement, and notified the Plaintiff of the lack of qualification for the instant tender.
As a joint tortfeasor, Defendant C and D are liable to compensate for KRW 300 million and damages for delay as part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff jointly as an employer of Defendant C and D.
3. Prior to the determination.