beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.08 2017누81429

부정당업자입찰참가자격제한처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s status, is a social welfare foundation aimed at supporting welfare facilities for the disabled.

B was entrusted with the management right to the Textiles Business Headquarters of the Plaintiff in accordance with the Work Agreement concluded with the Plaintiff and was in charge of the contracts and supply of textile products produced by the Plaintiff since August 2004.

B. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a commodity supply contract with the Defendant for each of the following goods supply contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant goods supply contracts”) with respect to the Defendant, C and D (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”); and C-related contracts are “each of the instant goods supply contracts”; and D-related contracts are “each of the instant D supply contracts.”

(1) The Defendant’s notice of restriction on participation in bidding on November 27, 2013 (hereinafter “Notice of Restriction on Participation in Bid”) was concluded. The Defendant’s notice of restriction on participation in bidding on November 27, 2013 is a contract number: P, date of contract: June 1, 2012; title of contract: C, “A” (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

One of the reasons for the restriction of qualification for participation in bidding is identified as one of the contracts.

The court of first instance deemed that the instant supply contract in June 1, 2012 referred to as the “D supply contract” as of June 1, 2012, and determined that the act related to D supply contract in June 1, 2012 constitutes a ground for the restriction of participation in bidding, and that the act related to C supply contract in April 30, 2012 is not a ground for the restriction of participation in bidding.

② However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant supply contract for the year 2012 does not mean the supply contract for April 30, 2012, rather than the D supply contract for June 1, 2012, rather than the D supply contract for the year 2012.

According to the supply contract of April 30, 2012 and the goods contract of June 1, 2012 concerning D supply contract, the C supply contract number of April 30, 2012 is “P” and the D supply contract number of June 1, 2012 is “ Q”.