입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The part against Plaintiff B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
2. The Defendant limited to Plaintiff B on August 11, 2016.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is written or added as stated in paragraph (2).
The third judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the following four acts (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act") by using "the former Enforcement Decree".
B. From the last 3th to 4th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g. (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) of the first instance judgment, the “disposition against the Plaintiff” and “Disposition against
C. Article 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 573, Sept. 23, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act”) of the 4th 11th judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party.
The "each disposition of this case" or "the disposition of this case" shall be used from 4th to 12th 8th 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "disposition against the plaintiff company", and "the plaintiff" shall be deemed as "the plaintiff company" (i.e., the determination of the relevant part shall be limited to the determination of the disposition against the plaintiff company).
The 6th to 7th of the 17th of the judgment of the first instance and the 12th to 11th of the 7th shall be deleted.
2. Additional determination
A. 1) Determination on the Plaintiff Company’s argument that the first instance court’s interpretation of the law constitutes “other employees” of the Plaintiff Company (Article 76(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act), the statutory interpretation of the court of the first instance violates the principle of responsibility under the Constitution, and is in violation of the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution by deviating from the judge’s authority to interpret the law beyond the possible meaning of the legal text.
B. The former State Contracts Act.