Plaintiff
E. E.S. Corporation (Attorney Park Jung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant
The Minister of Public Administration and Security (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Conclusion of Pleadings
August 10, 2010
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension from May 1, 2010 to June 15, 2010 against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2010 is revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
(a) Conclusion of supervision contracts;
1) On June 5, 2007, the Korea National Land Research Institute concluded a contract with a road information system company (hereinafter “road information system”) for services (hereinafter “instant services”) with respect to a project for upgrading the management system (hereinafter “instant services”) to improve the management system of the electronic road maps by means of a web (i.e., a point affecting the flow of traffic, i., an intersection, etc. at a point affecting the flow of traffic, i.e., a point where a vehicle has changed at a speed when driving a road), i.e., a line linking a road with a street and a streetd).
2) On June 27, 2007, the National Land Research Institute entered into a supervision agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant service (hereinafter “instant supervision agreement”). ② Under the supervision agreement, the instant supervision agreement provides for the contents, procedures, etc. of the supervision to be performed by the Plaintiff, it includes confirming the results of the supervision measures as one of the supervisory duties to be performed by the Plaintiff.
(b) Supervision;
1) On July 4, 2007, the Plaintiff conducted a preliminary inspection and field supervision during the period from July 13, 2007 to July 13, 2007, and prepared and submitted to the National Land Research Institute of Korea a “final supervision report (the evidence No. 7; hereinafter “the instant final supervision report”) containing recommendations on the following: (a) it is insufficient to install GISD (referring to a software in the form of semi-finished goods developed and sold only major functions to develop a customized program with software having a function to revise and edit electronic maps, such as neons, which is the basis of the system realization; and (b) it has to revise programs, etc.; and (c) it is difficult to install and submit a “final supervision report (the evidence No. 7; hereinafter “the instant final supervision report”).
2) On July 20, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a report on confirmation of the details of the measures (Evidence A8; hereinafter “instant confirmation report”) to the effect that most of the recommendations recommended in the said final supervision report were supplemented.
(c)Audit Board.
1) The Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit of the instant project from April 2009.
2) On June 22, 2009, Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the judgment of the Supreme Court) of the Plaintiff, who participated in the preparation of the instant final supervision report and confirmation report, submitted to the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection on June 22, 2009, a written confirmation that “The details pointed out in the final supervision report have not been supplemented, but i.e., an oral promise was made to supplement them properly during the maintenance and repair period in the National Land Research Institute and the route information system, and ii) prepare a report on confirmation of corrective measures to support the smooth completion of the above advanced project and submit it to the National Land Research Institute and complete supervision (Evidence 2; hereinafter “instant confirmation”).
3) The Board of Audit and Inspection ordered the Director of the National Land Research Institute to notify the Minister of Public Administration and Security of the fact that there was an error in the editing function, which is the core function on the web management system of the electronic road map, and that the Plaintiff had been developed with knowledge that the said function was poorly developed, on August 9, 2009, by deeming that it was prepared and submitted the instant confirmation report to the effect that the Plaintiff had been developed properly.
(d) Suspension of business;
Based on the audit results of the instant project by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Defendant, on March 29, 2010, issued a business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff from May 1, 2010 to June 15, 2010, on the ground that “the Plaintiff prepared a report on confirmation of the results of supervision differently from the fact that the editing function, etc.,, which is the offline of the electronic road map, was well developed with knowledge of the poor development at the time of supervising the standard-based link project,” on the ground that the Plaintiff prepared a report on confirmation of the contents of the measures taken by supervision differently from the fact.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5-8, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.
1) The “supervision report” under Articles 16(1)7 and 13(2) of the Information System Act, which provide that where a supervisory corporation prepares a false report on supervision, such as business suspension, shall not include the instant report. Thus, the instant disposition that is based on the premise that the instant report falls under the “supervision report” is unlawful.
2) The auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection prepared the contents of the instant confirmation, and Nonparty 1 conspired with the auditor’s intent to conduct supervision different from that of the auditor’s pressure. Unlike the contents of the instant confirmation document, the Plaintiff did not falsely prepare the instant confirmation report.
(section 1, 2)
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.
C. Determination
1) Determination as to the first proposal
Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the Information System Act defines “Supervision” as requiring an independent person from the interest of a person ordering a supervision and a supervisor to comprehensively inspect and improve matters concerning the construction of an information system from a third party perspective in order to improve the efficiency and safety of the information system. Article 11(6) of the Information System Act delegates the scope of duties of a supervision corporation to the Presidential Decree. Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Information System Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 4, 2010; Enforcement Decree of the Information System Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 5, 2010) provides for the scope of duties of a supervision corporation under each subparagraph of Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Information System Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22151, May 5, 2010). In light of the aforementioned relevant statutes, the “verification and notification of the results of supervision” prepared by a supervision corporation under Article 13(2)7) of the Information System Act as part of the supervision report prepared by the supervision report.
As seen earlier, this case’s return to the health department, and the supervision conducted by the Plaintiff includes confirming the results of supervision measures. The instant confirmation report prepared by the Plaintiff is deemed to constitute “supervision report” under Article 13(2) of the Information System Act.
Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's first proposal.
2) Determination on the second proposal
In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff prepared a false report on the instant confirmation in light of the facts admitted as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, and contrary thereto, each of the evidence Nos. 11, 12, 14-21, 23, 24, 25 (including the number of pages) is difficult to believe.
If the purpose of the entire argument is added to the statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 4-1, and 4-4 of evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, 1, and 4, there are errors in editing function, etc. on the electronic road guidance management system even before the Board of Audit and Inspection after the completion of the instant business.
According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, in order to accurately ascertain whether the instant report was prepared in falsity, the status of the information system established by the Plaintiff at the time of preparing the instant report on confirmation, but it is physically impossible by supplementing errors in the information system, etc. even after the instant report on confirmation was prepared and submitted. Thus, the supervisor’s statement in charge of the instant supervision is the most flexible material.
The Plaintiff’s supervisor Nonparty 1, who participated in the preparation of the instant final report and the confirmation report, affixed a seal and submitted the instant confirmation document to the effect that, although Nonparty 1 had not been supplemented, most of the parts as recommended in the instant final report were properly supplemented.
○ Nonparty 1 failed to properly understand the purpose of the audit and inspection of the auditor belonging to the Board of Audit and Inspection and affixed a seal on the instant confirmation report without any evidence.
○○ National Land Research Institute’s Certificate (No. 28, No. 4-2) signed jointly by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 of the Researcher Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 on May 25, 2009, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ Certificate (No. 28, No. 4-2) and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ Certificate (No. 5, No. 4, and No. 4-1) signed jointly by Nonparty 5 on May 27, 2009, stating that the Plaintiff pointed out the deficiencies in the instant final report and confirmation report, and such content is not inconsistent with the content of the instant confirmation.
Therefore, the second chapter of the plaintiff is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment Form 5]
Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)