(b) The case holding that, where a contractor who entered into a contract for civil works with the head of a local government and a contractor who entered into a contract for civil works submitted a calculation sheet stating a different unit price for each type of work from the calculation sheet which was originally attached thereto and had it attached to the documents related to the contract, and where he received an excess payment by claiming the money in accordance with the calculation sheet attached thereafter, it constitutes “a person who forged or alters the documents related to the contract”

(c) In the case of the above "B", the case holding that a disposition to restrict participation in bidding for a period of one year and six months is appropriate in light of the fact that the primary construction work amount is collected more than KRW 10,000 or more according to the replacement method of the calculation sheet and the subsequent specifications, etc.

B. The case holding that since the plaintiff, who entered into a contract for civil construction work with the head of a local government and the expected amount of at least KRW 100 million, submitted a calculation sheet stating the unit price of each type of work different from the calculation sheet that was attached at the time of the initial tender or the conclusion of a contract, and submitted the calculation sheet stating the unit price of each type of work, which was partially different from the calculation sheet at the time of the initial tender and attached at the time of the initial tender and the execution of the contract, and had it attached to the contract documents as if it were a legitimate statement, the plaintiff was paid more than KRW 1,00,000 in excess of the original calculation sheet by claiming and receiving the money in accordance with the calculation sheet attached later and receiving the payment in accordance with the calculation sheet, the plaintiff's change of the above specification, which is a document related to the contract, and

C. In the case of the above "B", the purport of requiring the submission of a calculation sheet stating the unit price for each type of work in advance at the time of bidding is to adjust the construction amount based on the change of design or volume by requiring the submission of a calculation sheet in advance for civil engineering work unlike other construction work, since there are many possibilities that the unit price for each type of work should be changed after the conclusion of the contract, the total contract price for civil engineering work is not less than the estimated price under the premise that the construction work is scheduled, and the unit price for the calculation sheet after the conclusion of the contract is an important factor that determines the actual construction price, and thus, the increase of the unit price for the calculation sheet after the conclusion of the contract is very serious problem that may cause a change in the actual construction price, and the fact that the plaintiff is more than 1,000 won and more than 1,000 won after the replacement of the calculation sheet and the fact that the plaintiff is not in violation of the law by taking into account the fact that the plaintiff is not in charge of the construction work in this case's order within six months without any abuse of discretion.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact that the plaintiff, who forged or altered a statement of particulars concerning contracts under Article 130 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, constitutes a person subject to restrictions on participation in bidding under Article 62 of the Local Finance Act and Article 71 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, shall be justified, and there shall be no errors of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There shall

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 62 of the Local Finance Act, Article 130 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act provides that "documents concerning contracts" under Article 71 of the same Act shall be those which determine the contents and validity of contracts to be entered into with the head of a local government or the head of a central government agency. In accordance with Article 63 of the Local Finance Act and Article 86 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the local government under Article 70 of the same Act, if the expected amount of construction work exceeds 10,000,00 won, unlike other construction work, a detailed statement stating the quantity of each type of construction work and the unit price for the same quantity shall be distributed to bidders for the purpose of calculating the original unit price for each type of construction work, and the plaintiff shall submit 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 63 of the Local Finance Act, Article 86 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to local governments pursuant to Article 70 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 92 of the Budget and Accounts Act, and Article 112 (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., the court below decided that the disposal of the plaintiff's 100,000,000 won or more for each type of work should be submitted a calculation statement in advance, stating the unit price for each type of work when bidding is held. Unlike other construction works, there is a high possibility of ex post change or quantity change. Thus, the court below decided that the disposal of the plaintiff's 10,000 won by submitting the calculation statement in advance to determine the unit price for each type of work, and that there is no significant error in the determination of the unit price for the construction work, which is no more than the amount of construction work scheduled, and that the plaintiff's 1000, etc.

In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below shall be justified and there shall be no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power, even in light of the criteria of the precedents of the party members with respect to the limitation of discretionary power as pointed out by the theory.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)