logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.30 2017누66406
입찰참가자격제한처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part that is dismissed or added is partially amended by Presidential Decree No. 26321, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”) in the fifth fifth sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

The term "11.7" in the sixth 19th 19th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be read as "1.4."

The addition of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance shall include the “former State Contracts Act” following the 5th following the date of the judgment of the first instance.

The following shall be added to the 10th 16th 16th son of the first instance judgment:

In addition, the legislative intent of Article 27(1) of the former State Contracts Act is to restrict participation in bidding for a certain period of time against a person who has committed an act detrimental to it in order to ensure the fair enforcement of competition or appropriate performance of contract, and to specify it. As such, Article 76(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provides that it is reasonable to interpret that, in interpreting the meaning of a successful bidder, a person who obstructs participation in bidding or interferes with the conclusion of a contract or the performance of a contract, is respected and consistent with such legislative intent. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the legislative intent of Article 27(1) of the former State Contracts Act is respected to the extent possible in interpreting the meaning of a successful bidder's "a person who interferes with the conclusion of a contract or interferes with the successful bidder's execution of a contract." The employee B

The act of failure to verify the entry is also the case.

arrow