부정당업자제재처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the first 17-19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.
Even if the Plaintiff’s act does not fall under Article 76(1)1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, as seen earlier, Article 27(1)1 of the State Contracts Act provides that “a person who committed fraudulent or improper act or unlawful act in the performance of the contract” is a ground for restricting participation in bidding pursuant to the same Article, and it is allowed to add it as such ground for disposition. Furthermore, as long as the Plaintiff’s act constitutes “the act of improper act in the performance of the contract” of this case, it cannot be denied that the Plaintiff’s disposition of restricting participation in bidding pursuant to the provision of the State Contracts Act is recognized.
In light of Article 76 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the above provision of the State Contracts Act only applies to construction or manufacturing of goods, and does not apply to the instant service contract.
However, insofar as the State Contracts Act only provides that “a contract” is “a contract” and its type is not limited, it cannot be deemed that the aforesaid provision applies to all kinds of contracts including the instant service contract, as well as construction works or manufacturing contracts.
Unless the Act delegates the authority to specifically determine the grounds for sanctions in the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule, the fact that the contents of the Enforcement Rule on the grounds for sanctions cannot reduce, expand, or change the grounds for sanctions prescribed by the Act is reasonable in accordance with the principle of superiority of the law.
Furthermore, Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, which is the basis of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act.