입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made several times to confirm the size and content of the yachts and the option formation, but the details of the yachts requested by the demanding administrative agency’s person in charge of the demanding administrative agency in the bidding notice were interpreted differently from the demanding administrative agency and supplied the instant yachts. Although the instant yachts supplied by the Plaintiff are different from the expected demanding administrative agency’s standards, the instant yachts more strengthened safety and more accords with the purpose of the demanding administrative agency’s use of the training-based yachts. The instant disposition made by the instant disposition, which prevents the Plaintiff from participating in the currently scheduled or ongoing public project, thereby undermining the Plaintiff’s existence, constitutes an abuse of discretionary authority, in violation of the principle of proportionality.
B. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the factual basis and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the disadvantage incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition is significantly larger than the public interest to be protected through the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as an abuse of discretionary power in violation of the principle of proportionality.
Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.
1 The plaintiff supplied a yacht without agreement with the defendant or the end-user institution, which does not meet the standards publicly notified by the defendant.