1. The Defendant’s six months (from April 17, 2016 to October 16, 2016) against the Plaintiff on April 7, 2016.

Details of the disposition

On October 20, 2011, the Plaintiff (formerly, Taechik Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd.) divided and merged the license for electrical construction of dry Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Building Machinery”) and the license for electrical construction of 2010 and the result of electrical construction in 2011.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract by the Defendant for “high-tensionB Corporation in the same Daegu Branch in 2015” (hereinafter “instant construction”). However, on August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was requested by the Korea Electrical Construction Association to submit explanatory materials on the Plaintiff’s electrical construction performance, which was reported by the former after the merger of a factory in 201. On September 17, 2015, the said electrical construction performance was notified that it would be treated as reduction because it was the performance by the issuance of false electronic tax invoices.

Accordingly, on April 7, 2016, the Defendant submitted a false document to the Plaintiff and received a successful bid for the instant construction work (hereinafter “the Act on the Management of Public Institutions”); Article 39(2) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions and Quasi-Governmental Institutions; Article 15 of the Rules on Contracts to Public Institutions and Quasi-Governmental Institutions (hereinafter “Contract Rules”); Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act; Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] subparagraph 10(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2-2, and the plaintiff's assertion as to whether disposition of the whole purport of the pleading is legitimate or not constitutes "a case where it is obviously likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate implementation of contracts" as stipulated in Article 39 (2) of the Public Institutions Operation Act.