조사협조자지위확인취소처분의취소청구의소
1. The revocation disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2011, to revoke the confirmation of the status of an investigator and cooperator.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. On October 31, 2006, the Defendant confirmed the status of the first investigating co-ordinor of the Defendant filed a voluntary report with the Defendant on November 1, 2006, upon submitting evidentiary materials on bid collusion related to the order of the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”) to the Defendant on November 1, 2006, and filing a voluntary report.
Accordingly, on March 23, 2007, the Secretary General of the defendant notified the plaintiff that "the plaintiff confirms that he is in the status of the first investigative partner" (hereinafter "verification of the status of this case").
B. On April 7, 2011, the Defendant revoked the Defendant’s identification of the status of the Defendant: (a) intentionally reduced the Plaintiff’s “before having been aware of the Plaintiff’s “the total bid documentation related to Korea was made in 11 items from 1998 to 2006”; (b) the Plaintiff submitted an additional statement to the Defendant around January 2008, “it was made only five items from 2004 to 2006”; (c) even after the verification of the status of the instant case, the Defendant was actively present at the countermeasures to reduce the scope of recognition for the Defendant among the bid documentation related to Korea War with other enterprisers (hereinafter “instant countermeasures conference”); and (d) around May 2007, the Plaintiff submitted a false statement expressing his intention to discontinue the collaborative act by mutual consent with other enterprisers on January 8, 2007.”
[No dispute over grounds for recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. The Defendant’s main defense is merely a notification of the concept of confirmation of the status of this case, and thus, the revocation notification of this case cannot be seen as a “disposition” subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the revocation notification of this case is unlawful. Thus, the main defense of safety is unlawful.
However, considering the following reasons, the notice of cancellation of this case is subject to appeal litigation.