1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following dismissal or addition. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The dismissal or addition of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the eligible person for participation in the tendering procedure, first instance No. 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and second instance, the “41,923,00,000 won” of the 5th sentence is the “41,923,000,000 won.”

From 11th to 12th to 18th to the first instance court's decision is as follows.

Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) provides that “A contracting officer shall not make any special agreement or set conditions unreasonably restricting the interest of the other party to the contract under the State Contracts Act and the Decree of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes when making a contract.” Thus, a special agreement unreasonably restricting the interest of the other party to the contract shall be null and void.”

Here, a special contract is unreasonably limited to the contractual interests of the other party, and it is not sufficient that the special contract is somewhat disadvantageous to the other party to the contract in order to deem it invalid in violation of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act. It should be recognized that the State abused its position in the transaction and unfairly puts disadvantage to the other party to the transaction by prescribing special agreement contrary to

In addition, whether a special contract unfairly limits the contractual interests of a trader should be determined by considering all the circumstances such as the content of disadvantage and the probability of disadvantage that may arise to a trader by such special contract, the impact on the transaction process between the parties, and the provisions of relevant laws and regulations.

Supreme Court Decision 201.15