The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to Article 4(2)7 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act as to the first ground of appeal, the principal contractor’s act of determining subcontract consideration at a price lower than the lowest tender price without justifiable grounds when concluding a subcontract through competitive bidding is considered to have been determined by determining unfair subcontract consideration.

This is a legislative purpose and purpose to effectively cope with unfair trade practices that determine subcontract consideration at an unreasonably low amount and to establish fair order in subcontract transactions in the case of an act stipulated in the above provision.

On the other hand, administrative laws and penal regulations, which are the basis of an indivative administrative disposition, must be interpreted and applied strictly, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the applicable party. However, unless the interpretation does not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language and text, the teleological interpretation in light of the legislative intent and purpose, etc. shall not be excluded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du2337 Decided February 23, 2012. As stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant tender constitutes a “tender” for the purpose of concluding a subcontract agreement as provided by Article 4(2)7 of the Subcontract Act in terms of the form and content thereof, insofar as multiple companies submitted sealed tenders and received a successful bid through competition after the bidding was publicly announced through the site site consultation committee. Examining the legislative intent and purpose of Article 4(2)7 of the Subcontract Act and the record in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned recognition and determination is justifiable.

Article 4 of the Subcontract Act.