(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, who is a standing executive of the plaintiff company at the time of the bidding of this case, operated the non-party 2 with the chief of the business department and conducted the preparation and bidding of the tender in accordance with the order of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2's non-party 3's 3's 3's 1 and 2's 3's 3's 3's 3's 3's 3's 1's 2's 2's 1's 3's 1's 6's 6's 6's 1's 6's 6's 1's 6's 1's 2's 1's 3's 3's 3's 3's 3's 1's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''''''''''''s 1''''''s 's 's '''''s '2's 's 's 's '2'''''''''''''.

Accordingly, according to the records of the court below's evidence review, first of all, it is hard to believe that the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 present each of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3 present each of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 in the case of applying for the suspension of validity of the measure of this case as to the non-party 9-1 to the non-party 3 adopted by the court below. The above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 present each of the above non-party 3 witness the above non-party 1 at the bidding site of this case and state that they correspond to this. However, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 present only the director of each of the plaintiff company and the head of each of the plaintiff company, and the above non-party 2 prepared and submitted the above non-party 3's statement in conflict with the above statement as seen below against the defendant's company (the non-party 3's evidence No. 3-1 and 2).

According to the records, the non-party Korea Special Chemical Co., Ltd., which participated in the bidding on May 7, 1983, after the completion of the evidence of this case, established a kind of petition (Evidence No. 4-2) to the effect that the successful bid of the plaintiff company is invalid because the non-party 2, who is an unqualified director, participated in the bidding on behalf of the corporation, is limited to the non-party 4 or more, although the public official of the plaintiff company, and submitted it to the non-party 2, who is the public official of the defendant company, to the extent that the above non-party 2 did not know the above facts of the non-party 1's seal and the above facts of the non-party 1's participation in the bidding of this case, and the non-party 2's explanation of the above facts should be rejected by the non-party 3's explanation of the facts that the non-party 1's explanation of this case's new testimony and the non-party 2's explanation of the above facts should be rejected by the non-party 1's explanation.

(2) In addition, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant sanction was unlawful on the grounds that there was no evidence to support that the instant action was committed by the Plaintiff company for the invalidation of the instant bidding, even if Nonparty 2 independently participated in the instant bidding without any on-site command or supervision by Nonparty 1.

According to Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act and Article 58-2 (1)-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a bidder, his agent, manager or other employee has intentionally conducted an invalid tender, the bidder's participation in the tender shall be restricted for a period of not less than 6 months but not more than 3 years. In the process of concluding a contract with the State or a local government, where the bidder, his agent or other employee intentionally violated all of the obligations which are the valid requirements for the tender, and thereby results in the invalidity of the tender, it shall be limited as a sanction for a certain period of time by impairing the contract order of the State or a local government. In this context, the term "suspect" shall be interpreted as a violation of such obligation, even though recognizing the specific violation of obligation which is the requirements for the invalidity of the tender, and shall not be interpreted as invalid.

In the case of this case, according to the evidence Nos. 3-2 of the above judgment, since the above non-party Nos. 3-2 is a person who has no power of attorney and participated in the bidding without power of attorney even though he was aware that the bid becomes null and void if he participated in the bidding, the so-called "non-party No. 2" does not constitute a case where a tender is held null and void under the above Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the court below's decision to the purport of objection is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the restriction on the restriction on the participation of unjust enterprisers in accordance with the above relevant Acts

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case to be tried and judged is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)