본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.03.16 2014구합103618

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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


1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 24, 2009, the Defendant offered a bid for the construction of the “B Facility Construction” (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the content of the construction of the Kimpo Terminal and the Han River Partition. C Co., Ltd. participated in the said bidding along with the Daelim Industry Co., Ltd. and the Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant on June 30, 2009.

B. On August 21, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of restricting the participation in a tendering procedure for four months from August 29, 2014 to December 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 76(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State was a Party on the ground that the Plaintiff led collusion in connection with the instant construction project (hereinafter “State Contract Act”).

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, and filed an application for the suspension of execution of the instant disposition with this Court 2014da1000121, and received the ruling of acceptance on September 2, 2014.

On August 13, 2015, the government announced the "Special Amnesty and Special Reduction and Exemption Measures" (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Reduction and Exemption Measures") with the content of releasing from August 14, 2015 a disposition of administrative sanctions, such as restriction on participation in a construction company and construction engineers (including bid reduction points).

E. On August 25, 2015, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, etc. publicly announced the specific guidelines on the scope of cancellation of administrative sanctions against construction enterprises, etc. among the special reduction and exemption measures in this case (hereinafter “instant guidelines”). The main contents are as stated in the “main contents of the instant guidelines” in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 16, 19, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1, and Eul evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit seeking revocation of the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit shall be restored to its original state by excluding any unlawful state arising from any unlawful disposition, etc.