부정당업자 제재처분 취소청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
With respect to this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for this court concerning this case are as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the assertion that the plaintiff supplements in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the entry in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is
At the time the Plaintiff submitted the technical proposal in this case and the quantitative proposal in this case, the Plaintiff had already been designated as the company to be in charge of providing the most essential goods supply and technical support for the A project through the non-party company. Thus, the Plaintiff’s personal career of participating personnel among the technical proposal in this case and the quantitative proposal in this case cannot be deemed to be obviously false, stating that the Plaintiff is in the process of establishing the Seoul CCTV Integrated Control Center from September 2009 to around September 2009 (1.130 million). Moreover, it cannot be deemed to be a case where “a document relating to tendering or contract is forged, altered, or falsely submitted or falsely submitted” as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Local Contract Act.
In examining the technical proposal of this case and the quantitative proposal of this case submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant first judged only the "successful or disqualified (Passor Flail)" as to the quantitative evaluation and then selected a negotiation eligible person by proceeding with the "price evaluation".
On the other hand, the contents of the technical proposal of this case and the quantitative proposal of this case are "the results of the establishment of CCTV control center", which is not the result of "maintenance and repair" that the defendant uses as the object of quantitative evaluation, and they are merely a simple reference matter.
Therefore, the defendant should have assessed the plaintiff's proposal only with the documents submitted except the above mentioned parts, and in that case the plaintiff could have passed the quantitative evaluation.
Nevertheless, the defendant does not make a quantitative evaluation against the plaintiff.