beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.02 2016구합71669

입찰참가자격제한처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced B bidding (hereinafter “instant bidding”) and the Plaintiff and three companies participated in the bidding.

B. In the instant bid, the Plaintiff was selected in the first order, and the Plaintiff submitted documents for examining goods to the Defendant on June 24, 2016, and the said documents contain a certificate of the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant certificate of performance”) stating the details of “(including power generation”) for night search and lighting (hereinafter “the instant generation date”).

C. On June 28, 2016, the Defendant requested the Korea Coast Guard Research Center, the issuing authority of the instant certificate, to verify the authenticity of the instant certificate. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant received a false reply that the delivery record on the instant certificate was false.

On August 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a false certificate of performance in the instant tender to the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition to restrict the qualification to participate in bidding for six months on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes Article 27(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) and Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1 Plaintiff’s employee who is in charge of the Plaintiff’s alleged delivery of the grounds for disposition newly recruited and then requested certification of delivery records, which included the result of the test of the supply related product in the process of performing the instant bidding-related work, was aware that the supply-related test results had been actually supplied.

There was no intention to submit false documents to the plaintiff or his employee.

The Korea Coast Guard Research Center also.