Two Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Jung-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea hydroelectric Power Co., Ltd. (Bae & Yang LLC, Attorneys Jeong Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 27, 2015

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap20904 Decided July 22, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of restricting participation in bidding for six months against the plaintiff on April 15, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing power generation room expenses, steel and steel refining facilities, petroleum chemical facilities, and other industrial facilities. Meanwhile, the Defendant was designated as a “other public institution” pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Management Act”) and was changed on January 24, 201 according to Article 6 of the Public Institutions Management Act to “market-type public corporation” under Article 2011-1 of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance’s notification.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of nuclear power plants with the Defendant, entered into a subcontract with the gender industry, etc., and received the pertinent parts and test results from the subcontractor. From June 2008 to August 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant the relevant test results received from the sewage contractor while supplying the parts for power generation facilities, such as piping materials, V, and width, to the Defendant.

C. In early 2013, the Defendant determined that part of the above test report [the details are as indicated in paragraph (c)(1) below, hereinafter “instant test report”) was a document suspected of forgery or alteration, and issued a written notice to the Plaintiff for cooperation in confirmation.

D. On February 27, 2014, following deliberation by the Special Contract Deliberation Committee on March 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict participation between the Defendant’s bidding six months (from April 25, 2014 to October 24, 2014) by applying Article 26(1) of the Rules on Contracts and Article 97(1)8 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Rules on Contracts, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who submitted false documents by forging or altering documents relating to the tender or contract” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 8 through 10, 12, Eul's 4, the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition is merely an act of notifying that the Plaintiff would not participate in the tender conducted by the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful.

1) According to Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions and Article 15 of the Rules on Contracts Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions (hereinafter “Rules on Contracts Affairs of Public Corporations”), only public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions may impose restrictions on qualification for participation in bidding, which take effect in large scale. The submission of the test report of this case was made at the time the defendant was designated as a public institution, and the defendant made the instant disposition after changing the designation as a market-type public corporation, but presented the Defendant’s provision on the basis of the disposition of the contract rules and the rules on the enforcement of contract regulations as a provision on the basis of disposition

2) The Defendant did not place the content of the instant disposition in the designated information processing unit (former Electronic Procurement System; hereinafter referred to as the “designated information processing unit”) and did not have any effect as a whole, and thus, it is not a disposition to restrict the Defendant’

B. Determination

1) The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstract, general, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Considering that an administrative disposition is an act that meets the requirements of establishment or validity in its subject, content, form, and procedure, a certain act of an administrative agency must be individually determined according to whether it satisfies the requirements of establishment or validity. A certain act of an administrative agency has the same external form as an administrative disposition that gives objectively disadvantage to the people without any legal basis. If the counter-party to the act is recognized as an administrative disposition, it is necessary to take measures to eliminate disadvantages or apprehensions from the disadvantage or apprehension of the people derived from the act of an administrative agency, the issue of whether the other party is suffering from the act of the administrative agency should be determined by considering not only the principle of rule of law administration at that time, the level of rights of the people, but also the attitude of the administrative agency related to the act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu17

In light of the importance of social and economic influence on the public interest and the lives of citizens, the Act on the Management of Public Institutions separates public institutions into public corporations, quasi-governmental institutions and other public institutions (Article 5). In light of the public interest and the importance of the public economic influence of public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions, various regulations stipulate that the Government shall exercise practical control by making considerable intervention in the overall operation of officers, such as appointment and dismissal, compilation of budgets, audit and inspection, evaluation of operation plans and performance evaluation, submission of settlement of accounts (Articles 16 through 52-2). However, there is no such provision for other public institutions (Article 16 through 52-2). The regulations on the management of public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions also stipulate general competition in principle (the main sentence of Article 6(1)) to ensure fairness and transparency in concluding contracts of public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions (Article 6(1)). On the other hand, Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions provides that public corporations and non-governmental institutions shall be restricted by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance for a period of up to two years.

In light of the legal basis, content, effect, etc. of the limitation on participation in bidding, it is reasonable to deem that the restriction on participation in bidding conducted by the head of a public corporation or quasi-governmental institution falls under an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, as the exercise of public authority directly affecting the rights and duties of the people under

In addition, according to the evidence examined earlier, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the disposition that the hearing for the instant disposition was held on February 27, 2014 after the designation as a market-type public corporation. On April 15, 2014, the Defendant issued the disposition in the instant case and notified the Plaintiff that he/she may be dissatisfied with the instant disposition by demanding an administrative appeal or filing an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 27 of the Administrative Appeals Act or Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the instant disposition against the Plaintiff after the designation as a market-type public corporation constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Order 2014Da535, Nov. 19, 2014; Supreme Court Order 2014Da534, Dec. 3, 2014).

2) The issue of whether the instant disposition is to be inserted in the designated information processing unit is merely an incidental effect to the restriction of participation in bidding. Even if the Defendant imposed a restriction on participation in bidding pursuant to the relevant statutes after the designation of a market-type public enterprise as follows, it cannot limit the Plaintiff’s participation in bidding conducted by another public corporation, quasi-governmental institution, etc. by inserting it in the designated information processing unit. Thus, the circumstance that the Plaintiff does not be subject to restrictions on participation in bidding by other public corporation, quasi-governmental institution, etc.

① Article 15(6) and [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on Contracts of Public Enterprises (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 230, Aug. 23, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon delegation of Article 39(3) of the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions provided that, among public corporations and quasi-governmental institutions, only the Korea Minting Corporation, the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Korea Coal Corporation, the Korea Resources Corporation, the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fisheries Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fishery Corporation, the Korea Agricultural and Fishery Corporation, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Minting Corporation, etc.”) shall include the name of the enterprise subject to the limitation of participation in bidding, the limitation of participation in bidding, and the grounds for restriction of participation in bidding in the designated information processing system shall be prohibited from participating in bidding in the relevant public corporation and quasi-governmental institution.

② Following the amendment of the former Rules on Affairs of Public Enterprise by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 230 on August 23, 2011, the head of each public corporation or quasi-governmental institution has the name of the business entity, the period of restriction on participation in bidding, and the grounds for restriction on participation in bidding, etc. when restricting participation in bidding (Article 15(6)), and the head of each public corporation or quasi-governmental institution shall not allow any person whose participation in bidding is restricted on the designated information processing unit pursuant to Article 15(6) of the same Act to participate in any bidding executed by the public corporation or quasi-governmental institution during the period of restriction (Article 15(7)). Article 4 of the Addenda to the above amended Rules on Affairs of Public Enterprise Contracts provides that the above amended provisions apply from the "unfair businessman falling under the

(3) The retroactive application of statutes, in particular, the retroactive application of administrative regulations, is against the principle of the rule of law, which generally reflects the rights and freedom of an individual, and threatens the stability of legal life. Thus, even if the statutes are retroactively applied, it shall not be recognized unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is no direct relation to the interests of the general public, where there is no direct relation to the interests of the general public, or where a benefit is promoted, or where any disadvantage or pain is removed, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du3774, Feb. 14, 2013; 2004Da8630, May 13, 2005). Article 4 of the Addenda to the Rules on Contracts of Public Enterprises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8630, May 13, 2005) is interpreted to apply from the limitation of qualification for participation in bidding for unjust enterprisers initially occurred after August 23, 20

④ Therefore, Article 15(6)6 and (7) of the Regulations on Affairs of Public Enterprise, which was amended as above, does not apply to the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s instant test report before August 23, 2011. Since the Defendant does not fall under 13 construction works, such as Korea Minting Corporation, etc., the name of the instant disposition company, the period of restriction on participation in bidding, and the grounds for restriction on participation in bidding cannot be inserted in the designated information processing unit pursuant to Article 15(6) and (7) of the former Rules on Affairs of

3) Therefore, the instant disposition constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, and thus, the Defendant’s main defense of safety is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant stated the grounds for sanctions in the instant disposition in the form of “a person who submitted false documents by forgery or alteration of documents concerning tendering or contract,” and did not reveal any leakage, time, and method of forgery or alteration of any contract. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on the grounds that the grounds for sanctions are not specified.

2) Article 76(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 97(1)8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Defendant Contract Rules restrict the qualification to participate in bidding for “a person who forges, alters, or wrongfully uses documents concerning tendering or contract or a person who submits false documents.” Here, “documents concerning contracts” refers to documents prepared and issued for the conclusion of a contract, and thus, the instant test report, which is a document concerning the performance of a contract, does not constitute the instant test report.

3) The test report of this case was forged or altered by the Plaintiff’s sewage supplier or re-contractor. They are not the Plaintiff’s agent, manager, or other employees, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the forgery or alteration of the test report of this case, and the Plaintiff was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent the alteration or alteration of the sewage supplier or re-contractor, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the test report of this case cannot be restricted solely on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted the test report of this case.

4) The instant test report does not constitute “a person who is obviously likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate implementation of contracts” under Article 39(2) of the Public Institutions Operation Act, in light of the following: (a) the sewage supplier, etc. was forged or altered; (b) the Plaintiff did not participate in the contract; (c) the pertinent product was revealed to have been in good quality; (d) the pertinent test report, alteration, and submission was conducted before several years; (e) the pertinent part was not a general commercial product or a nuclear power plant’s core part; and (e) the Plaintiff did not engage in an illegal act in the process of concluding and implementing multiple contracts with the State, local governments, etc. for the past several months.

5) The above circumstances and Article 76(4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 161 of July 21, 2010; hereinafter the same) provide that the disposition of this case may be mitigated by taking into account the motive, content, frequency, etc. of the violation, even though the contract size of the business that the Plaintiff participated in the bidding or planned to enter into a private contract during the first half of 2015 is limited to the contract size of the business that the Plaintiff would have participated in the bidding during the first half of 2015, and that the disposition of this case becomes final and conclusive, it is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretionary power for six months, which is the most severe sanction imposed on the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 is as stated in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) All the test report of this case is 33 cases as follows, and related contracts are 4 cases, and from June 27, 2008 to August 16, 2010, the report was submitted to the defendant several times (see evidence Nos. 16 to 19, evidence No. 1 to 33, evidence No. 1 to 33, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 33).

본문내 포함된 표 순번 발행기관 명의 ① 계약번호 품목명 품질서류 번호 발행일자 행사일자 위·변조 내용 ② 계약일자 ③ 계약금액 ④ 관련호기 1 티에프테크 Round Bar, PIPE TFT-06-001 2006.12.07. 2009.03.20. 발행기관 발행사실 없음(17건) TFT-06-002 2006.12.07. 2009.05.13. TFT-07-014 2007.10.04. 2009.06.11. TFT-08-007 2008.01.08. 2009.07.10. TFT-08-008 2008.01.08. 2009.08.05. TFT-08-013 2008.04.08. 2010.06.15. ① B03-P202-A00 TFT-08-024 2008.05.14. 2009.05.14. ② 2003.9.9. TFT-08-029 2008.06.02. 2009.09.15. ③ 27,280,000,000원 TFT-08-086 2008.12.09. 2010.03.08. ④ 신월성1,2호기 TFT-08-087 2008.12.10. 2010.03.08. TFT-09-030 2009.04.07. 2009.09.15. TFT-09-033 2009.04.20. 2009.05.14. TFT-09-041 2009.05.07. 2009.09.15. TFT-09-042 2009.05.07. 2009.12.30. TFT-09-045 2009.06.09. 2009.08.06. TFT-10-063 2010.06.04. 2010.08.16. TFT-10-064 2010.06.04. 2010.08.16. 2 포스코특수강 주식회사 ① NSWA-02P0002 ORIFICE 소재 51205-2004 2005.12.05. 2009.06.24. Steel grade 및 Spec 다름 ② 2002.8.경 ③ 400,589,200,000원 ④ 신월성1,2호기 3 티에프테크 Round Bar, PIPE TFT-06-001 2006.12.07. 2008.06.27. 발행기관 발행사실 없음(14건) TFT-06-002 2006.12.07. 2008.06.27. TFT-07-011 2007.07.06. 2008.06.27. TFT-07-014 2007.10.04. 2008.09.29. TFT-08-007 2008.01.08. 2008.06.27. ① S03-P202-A00 TFT-08-008 2008.01.08. 2008.09.29. ② 2003.9.9. TFT-08-013 2008.04.08. 2008.07.25. ③ 27,280,000,000원 TFT-08-029 2008.06.02. 2008.07.25. ④ 신고리1,2호기 TFT-08-030 2008.06.12. 2008.09.29. TFT-08-086 2008.12.09. 2009.01.29. TFT-08-087 2008.12.10. 2009.01.29. TFT-09-030 2009.04.07. 2009.05.26. TFT-09-041 2009.05.07. 2009.07.28. TFT-09-042 2009.05.07. 2009.07.28. 4 한국 화학시험연구원(주2)(KTR) ① NSKB-06P0002 금속 시험편 TAP-007992 2009.06.01. 2010.04.14. 발행기관 발행사실 없음 ② 2006.8.28. ③ 549,670,000,000원 ④ 신고리3,4호기

Note 2) The Institute

2) Of the pertinent test report of this case, Round is the main material for the production of V and pumps, etc. The Round is the body dunes dubs. Originals are devices that reduce pressure by passing through pipes consisting of several dial-related sections and that reduces in numbers desired by passing through a pipe connected with several dial-related sections. The metal test method is the city portion of “SIP Seal Cover”, “SIP” is one type of pumps used in nuclear power plants, “Seal Government” is one type of pumps used in nuclear power plants, and “Seal Government” is a cover installed to fix sealed devices to prevent leakage of fluids in pumps, and “SIP eal Government” is a sealed part of sealed devices and covers with the outer dials together with the outer dials for sealing (see attached Form 2, e.g., e., e., “dial”).

3) On the other hand, the pertinent goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant were confirmed to have no abnormal performance or safety as a result of the follow-up inspection, including the supply structure, the subject of forgery, and the details of forgery of the pertinent goods (Evidence A No. 8 and 12).

In order to coincide with the specifications of the materials ordered at the request of Nonparty 2 Co. 2 Co. 2, 200, without requesting Nonparty 1 to issue a report on component analysis to Nonparty 1 Co. 1 Co. 3 Eth Eth Eth Eth Eth Ethte, which is included in the main text of the table contracting company, without requesting the issuance of a report on component analysis to Nonparty 1 Co. 1 Co. 1’s Eth Ethte Ethte, and without requesting the issuance of the report on component analysis to the third party Co. 1’s Ethte. 1’s Eth Ethte, which was conducted by Ethte by using a friendly relationship between the officers in charge, the Plaintiff Co. 3’s Ethtethte and without arbitrarily preparing a report on component analysis under the name of the Plaintiff Co. 3’s Ethte on the result of the test to arbitrarily obtain the results of the test by using the friendly relationship between the officers in charge of non-party 2 Co. 3’s Ethte.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 8, 11, 12, 16 through 19, Eul's 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the applicable statutes

In principle, the legality of an administrative disposition shall be determined on the basis of the relevant law and fact at the time when the administrative disposition was taken (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu412 delivered on December 8, 1981). However, in the case of a punitive administrative disposition, the legality of an administrative disposition shall be determined on the basis of the law and fact at the time of the unlawful act (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu383 delivered on December 13, 1983; 86Nu63 delivered on January 20, 1987).

However, as seen earlier, since the Defendant was a market-type public corporation at the time of the instant disposition and was authorized to impose a limitation on qualification for participation in bidding under the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions, it cannot be deemed unlawful as a disposition by a person without authority. However, the instant disposition that restricts Plaintiff’s qualification for participation in bidding constitutes a punitive administrative disposition, and thus, the instant disposition that submitted the instant test report changed to the Defendant from June 2008 to August 201, Article 39(2) of the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions, Article 15 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Corporation Contracts, Article 76(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter the same), Article 76(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22282, Jul. 21, 2010; hereinafter the same).

2) Whether the grounds for the disposition are specified

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reason for the disposition to the parties when rendering a disposition. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents stated in the written disposition, relevant statutes, and the overall process up to the disposition, where it is recognized that there was no particular hindrance to the party’s moving into the administrative remedy procedure due to objection, it cannot be said that the disposition is unlawful due to its failure to specify the basis and reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009; 201Du18571, Nov. 14, 2013).

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the statement of evidence No. 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant, immediately after the discovery of the problems of forgery and alteration of the test report of this case, and immediately after the discovery of the problems of forgery and alteration, the plaintiff and the defendant conducted the work of safety test and replacement work, etc., and the plaintiff's employee non-party 4 prepared a written statement in detail about the subject of forgery, contents, circumstances, etc. of the test report of this case, the plaintiff was sufficiently aware that the defendant would be subject to disposition, and there was no particular obstacle to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) The purport of Article 39 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, which is the basis of the instant disposition, that restricts participation by unjust enterprisers in bidding, is to ensure the faithful performance of a contract by excluding participation in bidding for a certain period of time against a person who disturbs fair competition or the order of a contract, and to prevent the disadvantage that the State will incur, at the same time. “It is obvious that it would prejudice the proper performance of fair competition or contract.” The purport of Article 39 of the same Act, which is the basis of the instant disposition, is to ensure that a public corporation or quasi-governmental institution’s parties to a contract would engage in unfair conduct in the process of concluding a contract and performing the contract, thereby impairing the fairness and adequacy of a contract and impairing the purpose of achieving a contract through a contract (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order

Meanwhile, Article 15(1) of the former Regulations on the Affairs of Public Corporation established upon delegation of Article 39(3) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions provides that “a person who is deemed likely to undermine the fair enforcement of competition or appropriate implementation of contracts, or to participate in bidding, shall be deemed unlawful” shall be restricted to participate in bidding, thereby expanding the subject of disposition by relaxing the requirements for disposition more than the Act on the Management of Public Institutions. However, delegation to Ordinances is merely “necessary matters concerning the criteria for restriction, etc. on participation in bidding” and it cannot be deemed as delegation of the requirements for disposition. Thus, the mitigation of the requirements for disposition as above in Article 15(1) of the former Rules on the Affairs of Public Corporation is prescribed without delegation of superior statutes, and it is merely a provision that sets the rules on the internal rules on the management of affairs of administrative agencies.

Therefore, the determination of whether the instant disposition is legitimate shall not be based on whether it conforms to the former Rules on Affairs of Public Contracts, but on whether it conforms to the provisions and legislative purpose of the Public Institutions Operation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du10584, Sept. 12, 2013). It is reasonable to interpret the purport to the effect that, even if the Plaintiff’s act falls under the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act, the public institution Operation Act, which is a basis for interpretation, may be imposed only where it is deemed evident that it will interfere with the appropriate implementation of the contract, and the disposition to restrict bidding

B) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s submission of the test report of this case to the Defendant, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s submission to the Defendant of the altered and altered test report of this case. However, the test report of this case was forged and altered by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, who is the resewage, and the act of forgery and alteration was committed about 4 to 6 years from the time of the instant disposition. ② The Plaintiff’s submission of the test report of this case to the Defendant for the confirmation of whether or not the contract of this case was falsified and altered was clearly known to the Defendant. ③ In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s submission of new and altered test report of this case to the Defendant, it appears that it would be clear that the Plaintiff’s submission of new and altered test report of this case to the Defendant was clearly likely to harm the Defendant’s performance or altered test report of this case, and the Plaintiff’s submission of new and altered test report of this case to determine the suitability of the test results stated in the name of the Korea Chemical Examination Institute was no more likely to harm to the Plaintiff’s tender or alteration.

C) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the purport that, as long as the sewage supplier, etc. constitutes a performance assistant under Article 391 of the Civil Act, the act of perjury and alteration on the part of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, the non-party 3, as the Plaintiff’s act, belongs to the Plaintiff’s act, and the intent or negligence of the company can be seen as the Plaintiff’s intentional act or negligence. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not know that the report of this case was falsified and altered,

In light of the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff, the subcontractor and the sub-contractor, the circumstances leading up to the delivery of parts to the Defendant, and the circumstances leading up to the submission of the changed test report of this case, the act of the sub-contractor cannot be deemed as the act of the Plaintiff’s performance assistant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges, public officials (Presiding Judge) will be appointed in the future;

Note 1) Formerly, its name was “Guidelines for Contract Affairs” (see the relevant Act and subordinate statutes).

Note 2) On July 2010, the Korea Testing and Research Institute was integrated with the Korea Testing and Research Institute, and changed into “Korea Testing and Research Institute”. For convenience, the Korea Testing and Research Institute is referred to as “Korea Testing and Research Institute.”

3) In addition to the original test report of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the submission of the test report of alteration (related to Ulsan 3 and 4) was included in the grounds for disposition of this case. However, the Defendant’s attorney asserted that “it was included in the mistake of the Defendant’s personnel” through the preparatory document dated June 18, 2015. As to the fact that the test report of this case was included in the grounds for disposition, it appears that there was no dispute on both sides. Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s objection to the disposition of this case was not impeded.