Law Firm LLC (LLC) LLC

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm U&A (Law Firm B&A)

Attorney O Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant.

b) is in the position of the preferential negotiating party for the "public invitation of combined passenger terminal private business operators";

set forth temporarily.

2. With respect to the business set forth in paragraph (1), the respondent shall be no longer than 7 No. 1000,000.

Conclusion of additional contracts pursuant to the project implementation agreement entered into on January 6, 2014 between the consortium and the consortium;

and the implementation of the agreement.

(a) Invitation of enterprisers;

1) The respondent, while promoting a project to develop a metropolitan intermodal transfer center in Daejeon Seodong-gu, Daejeon, publicly announced on July 22, 2013 - No. 2013 - 90, “the invitation of combined passenger terminal private transport center development project operators” to select a private project operator.

2 ) 신청인 , 주식회사 ☆☆ , 주식회사 ♧♧신탁 컨소시엄 ( 이하 ' 신청인 컨소시엄 ' 이 라 한다 ) 과 ◎◎ 주식회사 · △△ 주식회사 ⑦⑦ 주식회사 컨소시엄 ( 이하 ' ◎◎ 컨소시 엄 ’ 이라 한다 ) 은 각 위 사업자 공모에 참여하였다 .

3) Of the public invitation guidelines for the public invitation of the above business operators (hereinafter referred to as the “public invitation guidelines of this case”), the parts relating to this case are as follows.

Part II Project Implementation Conditions

2-1. Payment of project application deposit;

(d) “If a person subject to preferential bargaining violates any of the following, the person’s eligibility as a person subject to preferential bargaining shall be revoked and paid:

(1) An additional project application deposit shall belong to the Urban Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Corporation"). Provided, That there is a justifiable reason,

50,000,000

2) Where delay the time limit for concluding a business agreement without any special reason.

Chapter 5 Conclusion and Termination of Business Agreements

5-1. Conclusion of a project agreement;

(a) An observer;

Upon entering into an agreement, the “Project for the Maintenance and Transfer Center Development,” as a result of the Project-Related Services

The Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor shall be present at the seat of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor to support various relevant policies, etc.

(b) Conclusion of agreements;

1) “The person subject to preferential bargaining” is within 40 days from the date of notification of the selection of the person subject to preferential bargaining (to Saturdays and holidays)

(other) Concluding a project agreement with an urban construction project on the basis of this public invitation guidelines and the content of the project plan

section 23(3).

2) “A person subject to preferential bargaining” does not enter into a business agreement within the said period without good cause.

(1) The term "a person subject to preferential bargaining" shall lose the status of the person subject to preferential bargaining: Provided, That where it is inevitable for the purpose of business;

The deadline for the conclusion of a project agreement may be extended in consultation with the Si construction project.

(b) Selection of persons eligible for preferential bargaining;

The respondent announced on November 1, 2013 - 153 the result of the review that the consortium was selected as the priority negotiation object, and the applicant’s consortium was notified on the 4th of the same month to the applicant’s consortium and the knife consortium respectively. Pursuant to the public invitation guidelines 5 - 1 b. 1 b. 1 b. 1), the deadline for concluding the business agreement given to the knife consortium on December 27, 2013 was determined on December 27, 2013.

(c) Conclusion of a project agreement with the lapse of the deadline and the conclusion of the project agreement;

1) On December 24, 2013, the consortium requested the respondent to extend the deadline for concluding the project agreement on the following grounds: (i) omission of the role of the Daejeon Metropolitan City and the participants in the project agreement; (ii) land sale price; (iii) payment method of land contract; (iv) reference to the non-authorizationable matters such as the large-scale store; (v) ownership of facilities when the project is discontinued; (vi) payment method of the Convention deposit payment; and (vii) need for consultation and review on the private business entity’s causes attributable to the private business entity.

2) On December 30, 2013, 2013, the respondent notified the consortium that the first negotiation object will be disqualified if the business agreement is not concluded until January 6, 2014, because the consortium did not enter into the agreement by the deadline for the conclusion of the business agreement stipulated in the public invitation guidelines, as there is no justifiable reason.

3) The respondent and the consortium entered into the business agreement on January 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

2. Summary of reasons for the application;

The applicant: (a) even though the time limit for concluding the project agreement prescribed in the public invitation guidelines of this case was exceeded, the respondent lost the status of the preferred negotiation object, but the respondent entered into the agreement with the consortium, and (b) the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor was omitted from the seal affixed to the agreement of this case; and (c) therefore, the agreement of this case entered into with the respondent, which entered into with the Respondent, sought a provisional disposition, such as the purport of the application, by asserting that the agreement of this case was unlawful.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

First of all, the respondent is not a party to the instant agreement, and there is no possibility that the instant agreement is concluded between the respondent and the consortium and the applicant can become a priority negotiation object. Thus, the respondent does not have a benefit in filing the instant application.

In this case, the validity of the Convention is denied, and if the consortium loses the status of the preferred negotiation object, the applicant consortium who is the subordinate negotiation object is in a position to proceed with the above negotiation with the respondent. Thus, the applicant has legal interest in dispute over the validity of the Convention and the validity of the status of the preferred negotiation object at the contact with the respondent. Therefore, this part of the respondent's defense of safety is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Contracts under the State Contracts Act are private contracts entered into by the State on equal terms with the other party as the subject of private economy, and their essential contents are different from contracts between private persons. Thus, even if any defect exists in the tendering procedure, the relevant tender shall not be null and void, and it shall be deemed null and void only when there are special circumstances, such as where the defect in the tendering procedure is serious to the extent that the public nature and fairness are substantially infringed, or where it is obvious that the defect was achieved by an act contrary to good morals and other social order even if any, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2006Ma117, Jun. 19, 2006). Such a legal principle shall also be deemed null and void in the instant public offering procedure, which has been used in accordance with the State Contracts Act.

2) In addition, a provisional disposition to determine a temporary position requires a high level of vindication of the right to be preserved and the need for preservation as an urgent and provisional disposition permissible only when there is any other necessary reason to avoid significant damage or prevent an imminent danger which may arise between the time when the lawsuit on the merits is finalized with respect to the disputed relation of rights.

B. Determination

1) As to the lapse of the time limit for concluding the agreement

The fact that the respondent and the consortium concluded the agreement of this case with the deadline for concluding the agreement of this case set forth in the public invitation guidelines of this case is as seen above.

In this regard, the respondent is merely the respondent's offer and has no speed, and the respondent and the Respondent can enter into the agreement until December 27, 2013. Thus, the respondent must obtain the right of rescission by omitting the contact with the delay of performance, and the respondent has made a legitimate compromise within the maximum period. However, the respondent and the parties who participated in the public invitation of this case have the duty to comply with the conditions set forth in the public invitation manual of this case. If the agreement within the initial period set forth in the public invitation of this case was not concluded, the respondent can immediately lose the status as the subject of negotiation as a matter of principle as determined by the public invitation guidelines, and the head of the Respondent cannot be said to be appropriate as the result of delay of performance or cancellation of the highest intent pursuant to Article 544 of the Civil Code.

However, the public offering guidelines of this case include the proviso that allows a priority negotiating party to extend the deadline for the conclusion of a business agreement through consultation with the respondent on the grounds of the comprehensive ground of "in inevitable cases for the purpose of business". This provision provides that the respondent, who is the party to the contract, may have discretion to extend the deadline for the conclusion of the business agreement to the party to the contract. If the respondent, as the party to the contract, agreed on the extension of the deadline for the conclusion of the business agreement, the validity of the extension shall not be readily denied in light of the principle of private autonomy, unless the judgment is remarkably unfair or unreasonable.

The case returned to the case, even though the respondent did not express his/her intention that the respondent would respond to the request for the extension of the contact body, and the respondent did not go through the process of extending the deadline for the conclusion of the agreement of this case, although the respondent re-determines the deadline for the conclusion of the agreement of this case to the contact body on January 6, 2014 as seen above, the respondent gives an extension of the deadline for the conclusion of the agreement of this case in fact. Since there is no ground to view that the extension between the respondent and the contact body is considerably unfair for the purpose of the project, the extended deadline cannot be deemed to have been concluded with the respondent as long as the contact body entered into the agreement of this case with the respondent is more than the deadline for the conclusion of the agreement of this case.

Furthermore, even if the time limit for concluding the instant agreement has not been extended, considering the fact that the respondent, a contracting party, entered into the instant agreement without any special objection, even though the time limit for concluding the instant agreement has not been extended, it is difficult to view such defect as a defect to the extent to nullify the instant agreement as being serious to the extent that the public nature and fairness of the tendering procedure may be substantially infringed.

2) As to the omission of the seal affixed to the observer

The fact that the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor is a observer at the time of entering into the public offering guidelines of this case is as seen above, but this is supported due to the nature of the business of this case.

As an incidental provision established to be guaranteed, even if the date of the observer, who is not a party to the agreement, is omitted, this does not necessarily mean that the validity of the agreement itself is not a reason to deny the validity of the agreement, because it is merely a violation of incidental matters of the agreement. Therefore, it is difficult to deem such a defect to constitute a defect to the extent that the agreement in this case is invalidated due to a significant road which substantially infringes on the public nature and fairness.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-young