logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.24 2018구합51872
부정당업자입찰참가자격제한처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a technology service business in the construction sector.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for precise inspection services prescribed in Article 7 of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Public Structures (amended by Act No. 14545, Jan. 17, 2017; hereinafter “former Public Structures Safety Act”) with respect to B by determining the contract amount of KRW 50,548,00 from the Defendant.

C. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a subcontract on the instant service (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with C by setting the contract amount as KRW 30,000,000, and had C conduct safety inspection.

On April 13, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the qualification to participate in bidding for five months (from July 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018) pursuant to subparagraph 4(a) of Article 31 of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, Article 92(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that “All or most of the major parts were subcontracted to one person in violation of the provisions on restriction on subcontracting under the former Act on the Safety of Public Structures.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-3, the entire purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract on inevitable investigation and test parts while performing the instant service, but the key parts, such as evaluation and establishment of countermeasures, were directly performed.

Therefore, it is unlawful to apply the disposition standard based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not have any ground for the disposition that “the Plaintiff subcontracted most of the whole or essential parts of the instant service.”

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) Determination 1) Article 31(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, Article 92(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 76(1) [Attachment 2 Subparagraph 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

arrow