입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The details and details of the disposition were conducted by a specialized company related to security, which is located in Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as "B") with security duties related to cyber threats analysis.
C is a public official of Grade B belonging to C.
From April 25, 2013 to May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s head D offered C entertainment of total of KRW 163,30 won as shown in attached Table D, and the Plaintiff’s head E offered entertainment of total of KRW 159,400, as shown in attached Table E, from January 10, 2013 to August 27, 2013.
On July 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of restricting the qualification for participation in the tendering procedure on January 15, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”); Article 76(1)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24728, Sept. 17, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”); and Article 76(1)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party.
[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument as to D and Eul's employees D, and Eul's duties and C's private relations with the above plaintiff's employees and C's private relations, and the details and scale of entertainment acceptance when Gap received entertainment from Eul and E, the plaintiff's above employees offered entertainment as above to Eul cannot be deemed to constitute "a person who gave a bribe to the pertinent public official in connection with the successful bid or the execution of contract." On the other hand, the plaintiff has continuously enacted the ethical rules in 2008 and provided education to the employees, and D and E's bribe as employees such as receiving official commendation for compliance with fair trade and operation from the Fair Trade Commission.