입찰보증금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Han Young-gu Accounting Corporation to sell the expressway resting facilities in order to sell the expressway resting areas and gas stations owned by the Plaintiff, and Han Young-gu Accounting Corporation was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to sell resting facilities in accordance with the above service contract.
B. On August 12, 2014, Han Young Accounting Corporation publicly announced that buildings, operation rights, such as B and C restings (hereinafter “A Group”) and D Rests and E Rests (hereinafter “B Group”) will be sold through open competitive bidding (hereinafter “instant bidding”); and on August 21, 2014, the bidding presentation for the said sale was held.
C. After the aforementioned bidding presentation, a consortium’s intent to take over (hereinafter “instant intent to take over”) that the consortium’s name “F Co., Ltd.” intends to participate in the bidding of Group A and the bidding of Group B (hereinafter “G Co., Ltd.”) was submitted to the Korea-U.S. Accounting Corporation, a major company for sale, on September 12, 2014.
Each letter of intent to accept the above is written by the representative of the Joint Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the "A") in the first instance trial, and A and the defendant are written in each consortium participant, and their seal imprints are affixed to each corporation.
After that, on September 25, 2014, the applicant’s application for participation in the bid (hereinafter “instant application for participation”) whose name is A was submitted by electronic means. On the same day, Han Young Accounting Firm prepared a letter that he/she selected A and the Defendant as a successful bidder for the rest area of this case.
E. On October 21, 2014, Han Young Accounting Corporation notified Defendant and A of the fact that it would take an active measure to conclude a sales contract. On the same day, the Plaintiff also requested Defendant and A to respond to the conclusion of a sales contract by setting the period from October 22, 2014 to October 31, 2014, but both A and the Defendant.