1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the non-existence of the disposition authority of this case, ① a contract to which a local government was a party (amended by Act No. 12000, Aug. 6, 2013) was a party (hereinafter “amended Local Contract Act”) was enforced as of February 7, 2014, a procuring entity was a local government, ② a bid to which a procuring entity was a local government, ② a bid to which a procuring entity was a public agency, ③ a bid to which a procuring entity was a public agency, ③ a bid to which a procuring entity was a non-public agency is not the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant

B. The former Act on Contracts to Which the Improper State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”) does not provide for succession to the effect of administrative sanctions. The Defendant issued a punitive administrative disposition against the Plaintiff, the transferee on the ground of the transferor’s violation of the laws and regulations by B (hereinafter “B”), and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

C. A deviation and abuse of discretionary power (1) The Plaintiff is merely a person who voluntarily participated in collusion while complying with the rules for collusion, and thus does not constitute a “person who led to collusion” as stipulated in the former State Contracts Act. (2) The Defendant included a bidding case without authority to dispose of it, and the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, took a disposition of restricting participation in bidding for two years in a lump sum to all relevant companies, without sufficiently considering the motive, content, frequency, etc. of the offense committed by the violating company. It is against equity and cannot be deemed that the period of sanctions against the Plaintiff is reasonably set.

3. In view of the fact that there are grounds to consider the motive for the instant collaborative act, and the country’s damage therefrom is not significant, while PHC files are designated as competing products only to small and medium entrepreneurs, and there is a great need to protect small and medium entrepreneurs.