1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, based on its reasoning, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s submission of the documents under Article 11(1) of the 2015 Examination Criteria (hereinafter referred to as “instant Examination Criteria”) regarding the Defendant’s tendering procedure for a cooperative company for power distribution projects in 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tendering procedure”) refers to the case where the documents submitted are different from the facts, regardless of whether the bidder’s intention or negligence, and that the document submitted was false (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tendering procedure”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s submission of the 2015 Electrical Construction Association’s electrical construction performance verification report in the instant tendering procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction performance verification source”) was insufficient to view that the Defendant’s notification of the scheduled successful bidder’s eligibility to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014 to the extent that it would substantially violate good public order and good customs of the Intervenor, or that the Defendant’s notification of the cancellation of the instant tendering procedure and the tender’s notification to the Defendant 20.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, i.e., (1) the total amount of construction records for five years from 2009 to 2013 calculated by properly reflecting the construction records from among the confirmation sources of construction records of this case submitted by the plaintiff, is about 0.1% of the total amount of construction records of the plaintiff's 10,000 won which is the part of the construction records of this case falsely reported to 9,211,52,000 won, and (2) the total amount of construction records of this case shall be determined as the successful bidder if the comprehensive deliberation point of this case is 95 points or more, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's construction records of this case were 17,700,700,000 won or less than the total amount of construction records of this case submitted by the plaintiff to 700,000 won, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's total amount of construction records of this case is 00,70000,000.

Thus, the defendant's notification of cancellation of this case is invalid on the premise that the confirmation personnel of the records of this case, which the plaintiff prepared and submitted a part of the error, falls under Article 11 (1) of the criteria for the qualification examination

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant notification of cancellation was valid on the grounds of its stated reasoning, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 11(1) of the Criteria for Examination of Qualifications.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won