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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff also stated in the business instruction attached to the public notice of tender that "all vehicles operating during the school travel period shall be within five years", but at the time, such conditions were practically impossible in light of academic travel and the poor management conditions of tourist bus companies. Furthermore, in the special condition of the school travel service contract attached to the public notice of tender, the "vehicle is assigned to a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle with a vehicle of less than five years as far as possible" in the special condition of the school travel service contract attached to the public notice of tender, it is inconsistent with the contents of the business instruction. Accordingly, the part which limited the vehicle type within five years in the business instruction is invalid, and therefore, the plaintiff's failure to comply with it is deemed that there is justifiable reason for the plaintiff to comply with it. Therefore, the disposition of this case (six-month limitation of qualification to participate in the bidding) in this case, on the ground that it did not comply with it, it

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the submitted evidence alone was impossible to realize the above conditions under the business instruction at the time, and there is no other sufficient evidence to regard it as such.

In light of various circumstances cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, such as that the Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder as a result of proposing that all vehicles will be provided with a vehicle with a total of five years or less according to the business instruction at the time of bidding, there is a justifiable reason for failing to implement the condition of “vehicles within five years per annum” stipulated in the business instruction by the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the content of the attached documents at the time of bidding is somewhat inconsistent.