logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2016구합60812
입찰참가자격제한 처분 취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s qualification to participate in six months (from April 26, 2016 to October 25, 2016) against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2016.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on October 14, 1985 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling clothes.

B. Of research and development projects with the military support system of the Army selected as a development enterprise, B (hereinafter “instant B”) was promoted as follows.

On January 16, 2012, the development test and evaluation of the Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance; from January 16, 201 to February 28, 2013 to February 27, 2013, the test and evaluation of the operation of the Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance on March 27, 201 and the determination of suitability for military use on June 5, 2013 to October 10, 201 as the result of the operation test and evaluation of the Agency for Defense Technology and Quality Assurance on March 27, 201.

C. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the instant supply contract with the Defendant, which completed research and development as above (the contract quantity of KRW 1,216, the contract amount of KRW 5,168,608,00, hereinafter “instant contract”), and completed the supply of the instant B.

The Board of Audit and Inspection shall start on June 8, 2015 for the same year.

9. By April, 200, an audit of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant audit”) was conducted, and around March 2016, notice was given to the Defendant as follows:

The specifications of all the goods supplied by the Plaintiff must conform to the specifications specified in the contract, specifications and number, and samples presented by the agency awarding the contract, and according to the B B B’s national defense specification C drawings enacted on October 10, 2013, the “outboards” as a component of the instant B is made twice.

Although the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the same as “a fixed line” in violation of the national defense standard and contractual terms, the Defendant had been holding it as it is.

As a result, only employers who deviate from the “fixed strings” in the 7th main body of the Army, etc. are constantly occurring, and in the future, combat units cease to be “fixed strings” due to the wind, snow, etc. during the night, or the shape of B is cut back or cut back, safety is exposed to fire, drilling, etc.

arrow