2. B;

According to the records, the following facts are proved:

A. On February 27, 2009, the obligees were selected as the subject of the first priority qualification examination in the annual unit price bidding procedure for FF Corporation (Class II) which opened the opening on March 5, 2009 by a corporate treasurer at the North Business Office of the Daegu Metropolitan City Headquarters under the debtor's control. The obligees were notified of the selection on March 3, 2009, and submitted the documents required for the examination of qualifications on March 9, 2009 (hereinafter "the construction and related bidding procedure of this case") (hereinafter "the construction of this case" and "the bidding of this case"). The obligees were publicly notified as joint contract (joint performance method). The obligees were designated as the representative company A (hereinafter "A Creditor") and the creditor corporation B (hereinafter "B Creditor B") as the representative company, and they completed the joint bid agreement with the creditor on March 14, 2009 and completed the joint bid agreement with the creditor on March 30, 2009.

C. A creditor B, while moving his place of business around that time, decided to change his trade name from “H to “B” corporation, and requested a certified judicial scrivener to change his trade name on March 3, 2009, and entered the change of trade name on March 4, 2009.

D. However, even though creditors submitted the above electronic joint supply and demand agreement in the name of "H, a trade name prior to the amendment," they did not change it in the name of "B," and did not submit it under the name of "H," the above act of bidding in the name of "H."

E. On March 25, 2009, the debtor notified the creditors of the invalidity of the tender on the grounds that the creditors participated in the tender under the name of the former corporation without registration of participation in the tender although the name of the creditor B was changed in accordance with Article 42 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") and Article 16 of the National Comprehensive Electronic Procurement System Registration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Registration Provisions").

F. On March 26, 2009, the debtor decided G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) that was selected as a person subject to the second priority examination as a successful bidder, and concluded this contract with G.

2. Creditors' assertion

In addition, according to Article 9 (2) of the Notice of the Government Procurement Service (Public Notice No. 2006-05 of the Public Notice No. 2006-05 of the Government Procurement Service), a creditor may not submit an electronic joint supply and demand agreement or modify the contents of the agreement after the creditor has already submitted an electronic joint supply and demand agreement to the Public Procurement Service on March 4, 2009, since it is impossible to understand the period and time, the creditor's participation in the tender of this case is not possible. Thus, the creditor's participation in the tender of this case without changing the trade name cannot be immediately null and void because he participated in the tender of this case. In addition, according to Article 9 (2) of the Notice of the Government Procurement Service (Public Notice No. 2006-05 of the Public Notice No. 2005 of the Government Procurement Service), the creditor's trade name was changed after the submission of the electronic joint supply and demand agreement to the Public Procurement Service.

3. Determination

In full view of the purport of the record and examination of the public tender notice of this case (Evidence A 1) provides that "I will use Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, Article 42 of the Enforcement Rule, and Article 14 of the Decree of the Public Tender." Article 42 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule, which is delegated pursuant to Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree, provides that a tender submitted without changing "the trade name or the name of a corporation" shall be null and void. Article 16 (1) of the Registration Rule provides that if a registrant changes registered information on the system, without changing the registered information on the system, the tender shall be immediately applied for the change of the registered document, and Article 16 (2) provides that if a bidder participates in the tender without changing the name of "the trade name or the name of a corporation," the tender period of this case (the joint supply and demand agreement and the tender period) shall be 0:00 days prior to the date of the change of the former tender agreement to 140 days prior to the date of the public tender.

In light of all the provisions related to the tender of this case and their public interest purpose, the participating companies shall meet the qualification requirements required in the bidding procedure as well as in the time of participation, and according to the above facts of recognition, if the trade name or the name of the corporation is changed through the public tender of this case, the obligor shall participate in the bidding procedure by reflecting the changed contents in advance, and if the tender is not so notified, the obligee shall submit the electronic joint supply contract to the Public Procurement Service on March 2, 2009 without knowing the existence of the above provision, and the obligor shall submit the electronic joint supply contract to the Public Procurement Service on March 2, 2009 without knowing the existence of the above provision, after filing an application for the change registration of the trade name of the obligee B on March 3, 2009 under the bidding procedure, after stating the change registration of the trade name on March 4, 2009 and without changing the trade name with the previous trade name, it is reasonable to deem the above tender to be null and void.

Of course, creditors were unable to accurately understand when the registration of a trade name change business requested on March 3, 2009 is to be handled in light of the characteristics of the registration business, and the circumstances where the watch of the bidding of this case was imminent do not seem to be understood. However, all of them were attributable to the negligence that creditors failed to properly understand all the provisions related to the bidding of this case in advance (where prior knowledge was made, then the creditors were at the risk of becoming null and void during the bidding procedure and did not change trade name). In light of the public interest purpose of the provisions for preventing illegal bidding, the above circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the notice of invalidity of the bid of this case was erroneous, and there is no other materials to vindicate this point.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the obligees' motion of this case is not sufficient to vindicate the preserved right, so it is dismissed as per Disposition.

May 18, 2009

Judges White-type

Judges Park Jae-min