The legality of the non-performance of the contract and the limitation of participation in bidding;

Although the new construction site for public change was changed differently from the initial contract, although the plaintiff company did not commence the construction work even though there was no interference with the construction work, the plaintiff company notified the construction contracting authority to cancel the contract if it did not commence the construction work until the time, because it did not bring the necessary apparatus, materials, etc. to the construction site until the time. Thus, the plaintiff company's restriction on participation is justified since it constitutes a person who did not perform the contract without justifiable grounds, so long as the contract for construction work was cancelled

Article 52-4 of the Local Finance Act, Article 58-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, Article 89 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu727 delivered on June 20, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including the grounds of supplementary appeal).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the following facts, found that the non-party Ayang-si was a public competition announcement on July 12, 1982 in order to newly build a public river in Ansan-si 33 in Ansan-si, Ansan-si and awarded a bid for the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered into the contract for new construction works with 7.30 of the same year and 9.27 of the same year with the date of completion, and the above changed construction works with the date of completion as 7.30 of the same year. The plaintiff did not enter into the contract for new construction works with the above changed construction works within 20 meters later than the above changed construction site because the original location of the changed lawsuit was too close to the change and it is not good for the plaintiff to be seen that the plaintiff did not enter the construction works within 33 meters later than the above changed construction site without any interference with the plaintiff's implementation of the construction works, and the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to cancel the construction contract without any justifiable reason and did not complete the construction works to the above new construction works.

In light of the records, we examine the above fact-finding and the evidence cooking process of the court below, and find it just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, and the incomplete deliberation as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and the plaintiff did not commence the above construction until August 26, 1982, and even if the plaintiff did not start the above construction until August 26, 1982, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not start the above construction until the above date according

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)