부정당업자 입찰참가자격제한처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of restricting the participation of unjust enterprisers against the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016 is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the development and supply of software and manufacturing and selling business of machinery related thereto.
B. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Gyeongnam-gu Administrator of the Public Procurement Service (hereinafter “Defendant”) under the Defendant, setting the contract amount of KRW 557,90,000 and December 19, 2014 as the delivery deadline, with respect to the first type of an ovum radio identification device (hereinafter “instant product”).
C. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant cancelled the instant contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the contract, and on March 24, 2016, issued a disposition to restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification for participation in bidding for three months (from April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016) based on Article 27(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party on the ground that “the contract was not performed without justifiable grounds” and Article 76(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “State Contract Act”).
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【Unsatisfyal Grounds for Recognitions, Gap's statements in Gap's Nos. 1, 3, and 24, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion under the instant contract, in order to link and exchange the instant product with the steering ovum identification device operated by the Navy and the Korea Coast Guard, communications rules and methods agreed between existing equipment protocol communications devices for smooth information exchange, but there was no way for the Plaintiff to lawfully identify the existing equipment protocol. However, the frequency (923.9375MMz) in which the equipment used in operation in the Navy was allocated to the Seoul Telecommunication for radio call, and thus, the instant product could not be used.
On the other hand, the contract of this case is obligated to cooperate with the defendant or the end-user institution in order for the plaintiff to perform the contract of this case, and the defendant or the end-user institution is the plaintiff.