2. B;

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs are companies engaged in the production, sales, etc. of high strength concrete files (hereinafter referred to as "PHC files") (hereinafter referred to as "A," when they refer to each company).

B. A cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "cooperative of this case") consists of 17 companies (including plaintiffs, D Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., F Co., Ltd., G Co., Ltd., G Co., Ltd., I, and J Co., Ltd., K Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., M Co., Ltd., Ltd., N Co., Ltd., Ltd., P Co., Ltd., P Co., Ltd., Q., Ltd., Q., Ltd., and R Co., Ltd., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "members of this case") including the plaintiffs producing

C. From July 201 to May 24, 2016, the Plaintiffs: (a) had the instant association and the instant member companies enter into a contract publicly announced by the initial limited competition to enter into a negotiated contract; (b) had a specific business entity receive a contract by entering into a negotiated contract; and (c) had a specific business entity receive a contract by entering into a negotiated contract with the pertinent association and the instant member companies (hereinafter referred to as “instant bid”); and (d) had the instant association and the instant member companies enter into a bid with the predetermined bid price; and (c) the Plaintiff failed to participate in the bid at a higher price; and (d) the remaining business entity had the designated business entity receive a contract by entering into the contract publicly announced by the initial limited competition method; and (e) had the contract owner enter into a negotiated contract with the private contract method (hereinafter referred to as “instant collusion act”).

D. On September 21, 2016, S, in collusion with the representative director, etc. of the instant member company, was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for one year, one year, two years of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution, and the president, representative director, or executive officer, etc. of the instant association were convicted (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da4187,5376(combined), and S appealed appealed against the said judgment, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal by raising the appeal by the Seoul Central District Court on February 3, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No3816No376).

E. On December 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of six months (from December 8, 2016 to June 7, 2017) on the ground that the instant collaborative act in which the Plaintiffs participated against the Plaintiffs constitutes “an unfair act, such as collusion,” as stipulated in Article 8(3)3 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small Enterprises Products and the Development of Market Support (hereinafter referred to as the “FF”) to revoke the eligibility for participation in competitive tendering process open only to small and medium entrepreneurs and to restrict the acquisition of eligibility for participation (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 24, 25 evidence, Eul's 1 to 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Violation of the duty to present the reason for the disposition

The Defendant is procedurally unlawful since the pertinent criminal case was prosecuted while rendering each of the dispositions in this case, and only based on the conviction of the first instance court and did not present the reason for the disposition.

2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) Since the facts charged in the relevant criminal case against S are not specified, each disposition of this case is unlawful as it does not specify the grounds for each disposition of this case. In addition, the part that the Plaintiffs did not participate in the bid of this case cannot be the subject of each disposition of this case.

B) The Plaintiffs, including S, did not have participated in the instant collusion, and the instant case ought to be determined differently from the relevant criminal case.

C) The instant collusion is an act aimed at preventing an infinite competition, and it cannot be deemed as a collusion as an act that does not require sanctions.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful as it violates the principle of proportionality and is against the principle of discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the above evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 9, 11 through 22, 26 through 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) Designation of competing products between small and medium entrepreneurs

PHC file is designated as a competing product only for small and medium enterprises under Article 6 of the Act on the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and is given an opportunity to participate in the tendering procedure for purchasing PHC files ordered by public institutions, such as the Public Procurement Service. In particular, since a public corporation or quasi-governmental institution, which was newly established on December 29, 2009, entrusted the purchase of PHC files to the Administrator of the Public Procurement Service, the size of the government-funded market of the PHC file has increased since that time.

2) Organization of working-level council, representative council, etc.

A) Around April 200, the instant member company established a "Operational Rules of the PHC File Working Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Rules") consisting of members companies at the time of the instant association at the initiative of the instant association, and consulted on the allocation of quantities and price maintenance in the PHC file supply market, including private capital market among members, and regularly, as the representative of the instant association (hereinafter referred to as the "Working-Level Council"), the Representative Council (referring to the meeting of the representative director of the instant member company), the Consultative Council (referring to the meeting of the representative director of the instant member company), the electronic files subcommittee, and the National File Consultative Council, etc., to exchange monthly production and sales information on PHC files between members and maintain the supply unit price of PHC files in the government-funded market, and to check whether PH files should be implemented as a method of joint reduction, and to check whether PH files should be implemented as a method of implementation.

B) All of the 17 PHC files producers, a member company of the instant case, participated in the instant working-level cooperation council.

3) The method of the instant collusion

In relation to the government-funded PHC file purchase bid, the member of the instant member failed to determine the level of successful bid price, i.e., the estimated bid price, the amount of production and inventory, and the bid score of the members, taking into account the activity areas of the members, the bid price, the amount of bid price, and the bid price. The member of the instant member failed to participate in the relevant bid, and the members of the instant member, other than the successful bid-holder and the work team, conducted the bid collusion in the form of non-participation, single bid, and the price exceeded the estimated price, so that a specific member can enter into a private contract.

4) Operational rules

A) The main contents of the instant operational rules formulated around 2009 are as follows.

Article 5 (Duties of Council) Council of the PHC Working Council shall deliberate and decide on the following matters: 1. Coordination of the fair system of sequence and reasonable prices through mutual consultation and heading 2. Joint response to monitoring of unfair acts and unfair solicitation; 3. Determination of the order of priority in bidding of government officials and private bidding; 4. When an enterprise producing files for the stabilization of the file industry has committed an act in violation of the purposes of Article 2 by failing to comply with the following subparagraphs at the meeting of the representative director, it shall be dealt with jointly by the resolution of the Council. 1.2. In the case of violation, the relevant representative director shall be invited to be removed from the order of priority twice as much as that of public officials and private bidding.3. Where a violation has great damage to the industry, it shall be set out in the 2/3 or more of the total number of members (hereinafter referred to as the "3rd Working Council"), and the number of members shall be set by the first two (1) order of priority in bidding among the two (2) / 15th of the total number of members (1).

(4) The first first order of each bid (or each bid) shall make every effort to obtain a successful bid at a unit price determined by the Council, and may impose sanctions if any prior consultation is made. (4-1) The first order of each bid (or each bid) shall determine and notify from time to time the bid price, settlement conditions, etc. at the lower order, and shall be managed. (5) According to the size of each volume of each bid (or each bid), the priority negotiating company may replace the sequence with the lower order of companies, etc. that fit the interests of the interests (2/3 6). (6) If the first order of each bid (or each bid) refuses from time to time to time to time to time to the first order, the first order will comply with it, and if so, the first order of each bid (or each bid shall convene an emergency disciplinary action and report to the representative director 2/3) shall be implemented at the same time to the end of each bidding (by reporting the details determined by the Council with the consent of the representative director 2/3).

B) The provisions pertaining to bid code among the operating rules of the PHC file working council prepared around 2011 are as follows.

Article 7 (Order of Bids). The order of bid is the order of priority in which the public tender of the demanding Agency is estimated, and the unreported estimate reported to this Congress shall not be determined as follows.However, the unreported estimate shall also be estimated to the sales unit determined by the present session: 1. Each member's CAPA, M/S, small and medium enterprise government supply, etc. shall be determined as follows: Provided, That the order of bidding on April 15, 201 shall be determined as follows (as from April 15, 201).U-V-W-W-H-H-D-2-Y2-Y2, V, W(0.5) shall be effective for one year, but the order of bid by convening a meeting under the supervision of a majority of the members companies before the request of a majority of the members shall be adjusted to 2/3 or more and shall be adjusted to 2/3 of the members present at the request of the local public tender and shall be determined by the sequence of the local public tender and shall be determined by the order of tender through consultation among the members:

6. With respect to a tendering procedure, the determination of whether a violation has been committed or not, and the decision of sanctions against a request by two or more companies, or by a secretary, if necessary, to convene an emergency meeting to determine whether a violation has been committed or not.7. The use of the sequence 500 or more out of the open tendering procedure shall be determined by the resolution of the plenary session in the case of failure to perform the obligation. 8. The use of the sequence 500 or more of the open tendering procedure shall be determined by the resolution of the plenary session. The designation of the executive secretary shall be considered as the use of the sequence 50 or more of the single report at least once in 10.0 of the single report quantity is not the use of the sequence 9 even in the case of a single report. In the case of a report by multiple parties under multiple paragraphs 9 and 10, it shall be determined that the executive secretary shall not use the sequence 500 or more of the single report quantity, as in paragraph 9.

D. Determination

1) Whether the disposition violates the duty to present the reason

A) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the grounds and reasons therefor to the parties. The purport is to exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency and to allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure.

Therefore, in full view of the contents of the written disposition, relevant statutes, and the overall process, etc. up to the time of the disposition, where it is possible to fully ascertain which grounds and grounds were made by the parties at the time of the disposition, and where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to moving into the administrative remedy procedure, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful due to such failure, even if the grounds and grounds for the disposition are not specified in the written disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18571, Nov. 14, 2013).

B) In full view of the following circumstances, each of the above facts acknowledged, evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as follows, are comprehensively taken into account: (a) it is sufficiently known that the Plaintiffs were subject to the disposition at the time of each of the instant dispositions; and (b) it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to the Plaintiffs’ moving into the administrative district procedure; and (c) thus, each of the instant dispositions cannot be

(1) Each disposition of this case is the cause of each disposition, and it is found that the specific file (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

(2) In addition, in the indictment against S and the first instance judgment of the relevant criminal case, the summary table of the successful bid status (the number of successful bidders and the successful bid amount) of the instant member companies, including the Plaintiffs, is indicated in the list of crimes No. 1, and the list No. 2 of the crime list indicates the bid price awarded by the Plaintiffs in detail.

(3) S was convicted of interference with bidding in the relevant criminal case, and filed an appeal and a final appeal. Each of the dispositions of this case can be clearly known through each of the dispositions of this case, which are based on the contents of the judgment of the first instance in the relevant criminal case, and the plaintiffs had an opportunity to sufficiently express their opinions in the relevant criminal case, and the grounds for each of the dispositions of this case are also disputing as alleged in the relevant criminal case. Thus, it seems that at the time of each of the dispositions of this case, it was sufficiently known that the plaintiffs at the time of each of the dispositions of this case were the grounds and reasons

2) Whether the grounds for each of the dispositions in this case exist

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the act of collusion in this case, in which the plaintiffs participated, may interfere with the fair execution of competition or the proper implementation of a contract. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the act of collusion in this case constitutes "the case where the act of collusion in this case constitutes "an act of improper conduct, such as collusion," as stipulated in Article 8 (3) 3 of the former Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishery Products and the former Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Act No. 10504, Mar. 30, 2011; Act No. 10504, Jul. 1, 2011; Act No. 13866, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "former Act on the Support of Agricultural and Fishing Villages")

A) Around April 2009, the instant member companies, including the Plaintiffs, established the operating rules of the instant case, which consisting of member companies at the time of the instant association’s establishment, and consulted on the allocation of quantities and price maintenance in the PHC file supply market, including the private-class market among member companies. At regular intervals with the establishment of the instant association, the instant working group, representative councils, files councils, subcommittees, and files councils, etc. were held to exchange monthly information on the results of production and sales and inventory of the PHC files between members, and maintain the unit price of the PHC file supply in the government-funded market by exchanging information on the monthly production and inventory of the PHC files between members, and inspecting compliance with the implementation of the PHC file production plan by means of the implementation method.

B) In relation to the public-grade PHC file purchase bid, the instant member failed to determine the level of successful bidders, reporters, and bidding price by taking into account the activity areas, production and inventory volume, bidding eligibility points, etc. of the members, and the members, other than those who are scheduled to award the bid and those who do not participate in the bid, were engaged in the bid bid bid in a way that they do not participate in the bid in question. In order to enhance the basic amount publicly notified by the agency awarding the contract, the instant member participated in the bid in the form of “non-tender, single bid, and bid exceeding the estimated price,” so that a specific member can enter into a private contract.

C) As to the instant collusion, in collusion with the representative director, etc. of the instant member company as the president of the Plaintiff, S was convicted of interference with bidding for government-funded PHC file purchase cases ordered by public institutions, such as the Public Procurement Service, and filed an appeal against the crime of impairing the fairness of the bidding by fraudulent means or other means, but the appeal was filed, but the appeal is still pending in the final appeal.

D) The Plaintiffs’ interest derived from the instant collaborative act reaches KRW 14,524,771,762 in health class, KRW 53 of the bid price, and KRW 14,524,771,762 in total, and KRW 11,478,234,547 in total.

E) The plaintiffs were unspecified in the facts charged against S, and it is merely 53 times and 44 times each of the dispositions of this case among the 1,360 collaborative acts of this case. Each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful. However, the indictment and the judgment of the first instance court of the related criminal case list 1 and 2 specify the date and time of bidding, bidding bidding status, bid bid price, etc. of the plaintiffs, and the above facts charged are specified. The aforementioned facts charged are specified in the process of the combination of this case and the representatives of the member companies of this case or the members companies of this case's collaborative acts of this case's collaborative acts of this case's collaborative acts of this case's association, the process of mutual contact and opinion gathering, specific execution method, and the method of maintaining collusion, and even though S did not have a substantial operator of the company of this case's member companies of this case and the member companies of this case's collaborative act of this case's 1,360 collaborative acts of this case's bidding, each of the above dispositions of this case constitutes an unfair collusion of this case's 4.

F) The Plaintiffs asserted that S was not entirely involved in the PHC file business and that the member companies belonging to the instant union and the Seoul Metropolitan Area area were not aware of the instant collusion act. However, in full view of the following circumstances, S was aware of the structure and method of the instant collusion act performed nationwide, and participated in the instant collusion act. In collusion with the instant union and the instant member companies, it can be deemed that S committed the instant collusion act by sharing the act of practice through its subordinate employees.

(1) The part of the “each of the instant operational rules’ signature” stated as “B week”, and the operational rules drafted on April 18, 201 stated as “in the case of the local quantity, the local community sector shall be incorporated into the bidding order and the order shall be determined upon the request of the executive secretary of Yong-Nam in the case of the local quantity.”

(2) Plaintiff B is a member of the Youngnam-do Working-Level Council, and Plaintiff B’s former Z on behalf of the Plaintiffs appeared at the meeting of the representative, meeting of the head of the department, and regular board of directors of the instant association, etc., and reported the contents of the meeting to S., and the Plaintiff also appeared at the meeting of the representative directly.

(3) The plaintiffs participated in the bidding, which is distributed to each field across the country as well as the Yong-Nam-Nam area in which the plaintiffs' office is located. The plaintiffs B participated in the bidding 39 times in total and 118 times in total, 79 times in total, and the number and amount of bid awarded by the plaintiffs shall be 97 times in total and 26 billion won in total. The plaintiff B's former Z, A AAAA, and AB investigative agency have also agreed on the part where the plaintiffs participated in the bidding as a Rusri enterprise.

(4) The plaintiffs' bid bid price was most high rate of 97-99%, and their bid price was more than 100%, and there were many cases where the bid price of the plaintiffs fell in excess of 100%.

(5) At the joint hosting room of the instant working-level workers, the results of each other’s production, discussed the successful bid price, etc., the details of the meeting of the head of the department, and the circumstances in which Plaintiff B expressed the intent to attend the meeting were discovered. In addition, the content of the instant working-level consultative body’s data seized in the relevant criminal case included the contents of the tender assignment to the Plaintiffs, and even if the Plaintiffs were unable to attend the meeting of the instant working-level consultative body in the Yong-Nam area, it appears that they were consulted by telephone at the time of the inspection.

(6) S, as the actual operator of the plaintiffs, stated that it had overall control over two companies in the investigative agency, and the plaintiffs account for the most important portion among six affiliated companies belonging to the plaintiff B's business group operated by S. Thus, it is difficult to accept in light of empirical rule that S, which is in the position of exercising overall control over the plaintiffs, entrusts its subordinate employees with both PHC file and did not fully recognize the collusion in this case in which both the union and the member companies of this case participated.

G) The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the instant collaborative act is not subject to sanctions, as it aims to prevent an unabrupted competition. However, even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the production quantity of PHC file was insufficient to supply compared to demand. The instant member company obtained unfair profits by winning a bid at a high rate bid rather than ordinary bid price through the instant collaborative act, based on the fact that the PH file was designated as a competitive product open only to small and medium enterprises, and that the instant member company acquired unfair profits by winning a bid at a higher rate than ordinary bid. In light of the above, it is difficult to deem that the instant collaborative act was merely an act

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

In full view of the following circumstances, it cannot be said that each of the dispositions of this case was abused or abused discretion, taking into account the following circumstances where the purport of the entire arguments based on the facts admitted as above and the evidence revealed earlier. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

A) According to the Act on the Development of Market Support, where a small and medium enterprise proprietor engaged in unfair conduct, such as collusion, the Defendant shall revoke the qualification for participation in the competitive bidding process open only to small and medium enterprises (Article 8(3)3); and where the Defendant cancels the qualification for participation, it may restrict the acquisition of the qualification for participation within one year from the date of revocation (Article 8(5)). Meanwhile, according to the former Act on the Development of Market Support, where a small and medium enterprise proprietor engaged in unfair conduct, such as collusion, the Defendant may revoke the qualification for participation, or suspend it within one year, and where the qualification for participation is revoked, the acquisition of the qualification for participation may be restricted within one year from

B) According to the above law, where the Act on the Development of Market Support was amended and illegal acts, such as collusion are required to be revoked. However, Article 4 and [Attachment Table 1] 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Market Support, which was applied at the time of the enforcement of the former Act on the Development of Market Support, provided that the revocation of participation eligibility and the restriction on the acquisition of participation eligibility for six months. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to enter the former Act on the Development of Market Support in each of the instant dispositions, alone, cannot be said to have exercised discretion on the relevant sanctions.

C) Even if the criteria for a disciplinary administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it has nothing to externally bind citizens or courts since it merely provides for the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, not only the above disposition criteria, but also the above disposition criteria. Thus, the above disposition criteria cannot be deemed legitimate merely because they comply with the above disposition criteria. However, it cannot be deemed that the disposition in accordance with the above disposition criteria goes beyond the scope of discretion or abuse of discretionary power, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such disposition is considerably unfair in light of the contents of the act of violation and the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 20076946, Sept. 20, 2007). In light of the relevant laws and regulations, it is difficult to view that the above disposition criteria are not in conformity with the above disposition criteria, such as suspension of participation in competitive bidding for a certain period or cancellation of participation eligibility for a small enterprise in a contract under the Market Support Act.

D) The number of the plaintiffs' participation in the bidding of the 1,360s in the bidding of this case is 39 times, and 118 times, respectively, and the number of the plaintiffs A is 53 times and 44 times, but the successful bid amount is 14,524,71,762 won and the successful bid amount is 11,478,234,547 won. In addition, besides the successful bid amount, the bid amount is 11,478,234,547 won and the bid amount is 11,47 won.

E) Most of the members of the instant case were punished by the representative director or executive officer as a interference with bidding, and S was convicted from the relevant criminal case to the appellate court. In light of the fact that S, as the actual operator of each company, participated in the instant collaborative act through its subordinate employees, and appears to have enjoyed the benefit therefrom, it cannot be deemed unfair to impose each of the instant dispositions on the Plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho

Judges Han Han-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.