[입찰참가자격제한처분취소][공1994.10.1.(977),2536]
The case holding that the disposition of restriction on participation in a company is lawful on the grounds of the supply of large enterprises' products and alteration of factory registration certificates, etc.
The case affirming the judgment of the court below that a small and medium enterprise engaged in the business of manufacturing bedclothes and supplying goods that are not manufactured by a small and medium enterprise in violation of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products, supplied a large enterprise's certificate of factory registration in violation of Article 62 of the Local Finance Act, Article 71 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13981 of Sep. 23, 1993), Article 130 (1) 1 and 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13980 of Sep. 23, 1993), Article 79 (1) and 1 (a) of the former Rules on the Management of Contracts (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1948 of Oct. 20, 1993), and Article 79 (3) of the former Rules on the Promotion of the Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products, etc. shall not be affected by alteration or alteration of the contract.
Article 62 of the Local Finance Act, Article 71 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13891 of Sep. 23, 1993), Article 95 of the Budget and Accounts Act, Articles 130 (1) 1 and 130 (1) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13890 of Sep. 23, 1993), Article 79 (1) of the former Rules on the Management of Contract Affairs (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1948 of Oct. 20, 1993)
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu27326 delivered on January 27, 1994
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
(1) On the first ground for appeal
In light of the above facts, the court below found that the plaintiffs, who are small and medium enterprises engaged in the business of manufacturing bedclothes and supplying goods to the defendant at a higher price than normal price, supplied products produced by small and medium enterprises in violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products, and the plaintiff 2 issued the disposition of this case that limits the plaintiffs' participation in bidding for six months on the ground that the plaintiff 3-month registration certificate was modified by the above association, and the plaintiff 2 entered the above association for the purpose of allocating the quantity of goods to the defendant through the above association, the plaintiff 1 corporation's factory alteration was not allowed. The plaintiff 9 of this case's act of supplying the above 9-10-100-10-100-67-19-77-19-7-19-11-2-11-2-2-3-3-3-2-3-197-2-197-2-197-2-197-2-19-7-19-7-7-19-7-7-19-7-7-7-7
(2) On the second ground for appeal
The issue is that the court below did not at all determine whether to accept part of the evidence submitted by the court below in order to prove the alleged facts, and did not recognize the facts indicated in the evidence. However, when examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the records, the court below's conclusion that the defendant's restriction on the participation in a tendering procedure of this case against the plaintiffs is not different, or that the defendant's restriction on the participation in a tendering procedure of this case should not be deemed to have been done in spite of the absence of the grounds therefor
(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)