logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.26 2016누38114
입찰참가자격제한처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition restricting participation in bidding against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2015.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the pertinent law and the reasoning for this part of the decision of the court are stated are as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasons for the decision of the court of the first instance (from No. 2 to No. 3, 16) is the same in addition to the dismissal or addition of a part of the decision of the court of the first instance; and (b) thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article

Part 5 of the third parallel " March 23, 2014" shall be deemed " March 23, 2015".

Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 76(1)8 and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sept. 2, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”); Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 533, Feb. 1, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the State Contract Act”).

Article 17 of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016); “Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party” is “Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sept. 2, 2016)”; and “Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party” is “Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party” (amended by Ordinance No. 533, Feb. 1, 2016).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The court’s reasons for this part with respect to procedural defects constitute grounds for the judgment of the first instance court.

arrow