입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.
1. The reasons why the court shall explain concerning this case are stated in the reasoning of the above judgment, except for modification or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 below.
Therefore, this is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Litigation Act.
2. A part which is corrected or added in the judgment of the first instance; and
(a)in the end of the third letter box, the following shall be added:
Article 15 (Defects' Liability for Warranty) Where any defect occurs in the supply of goods and installation works under the relevant contract, the members of the joint body shall be liable for each defect according to the details of apportionment.
However, the representative of a joint body shall be responsible for the performance of any defect repair if other members fail to pay the defective repair.
(b) 6 to 7 conduct following the third letter box “for reasons that technical know-how and construction cost are not adequate” shall be corrected to read “for reasons that the representative private person’s opinion on the scope of construction and the service cost is impossible due to differences in the construction scope and the service cost with the Plaintiff.”
(c)
Part 10 3. The following shall be added to:
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant imposed three-month limitation on qualification for participation in bidding on D with the largest responsibility for the non-performance of the contract in this case, and that even if C did not impose any sanctions on C, it does not violate the principle of equality because it does not violate equity.
However, as seen in the foregoing item (a), the Plaintiff primarily formed the instant co-owned body, and entered into the instant contract as the representative of the co-owned body, and is in the position to be mainly responsible for the implementation of the instant contract, such as the share of the instant contract reaches about 77%. In full view of the overall purport of the entries and changes in the evidence No. 7 and No. 12, D did not perform design work, and waived the reasons for the instant contract with the Plaintiff.