입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of restricting participation in bidding for two years against the Plaintiff on March 7, 2018 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the production and sales of steel and steel pipes, etc., and is a company B (hereinafter “B”) on July 1, 2015.
(2) The Defendant is a public corporation as prescribed by the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”), and carries out the business of importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and supplying it to power plants, etc. or supplying it to a general urban gas company.
B. The Plaintiff’s bid collusion and Fair Trade Commission’s decision 1) B, C, D, E, E, A and F (hereinafter “instant six companies”).
() The Defendant agreed in advance on the scheduled bid price, bid price, bid price, failure, volume distribution, etc. (hereinafter “instant collusion”) in order to avoid price competition and secure a stable quantity in the total of 37 lecture bid listed in the attached Table, which was ordered by the Defendant from January 2003 to December 2, 2013 (hereinafter “instant collusion”).
(2) The Fair Trade Commission determined that the six companies violated Article 19(1)3 and 8 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”) by engaging in the instant collusion. On December 21, 2017, the Fair Trade Commission ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 25.6 billion.
C. The Defendant’s disposition 1 of this case held the contract deliberation committee based on the above resolution of the Fair Trade Commission. The contract deliberation committee divided the opinion that “the awarded company is deemed to have held joint contracts since the instant collusion had been conducted over a long-term period,” and decided that the Plaintiff constitutes “the person who received a successful bid by leading the collusion.” Accordingly, on March 7, 2018, the Defendant was below Article 39 of the Public Institutions Operation Act, the Rules on Business Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions on the ground of the instant collusion to the Plaintiff.