logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.20 2015누55174
부정당업자제재처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation about this part of the disposition is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 3 to the third 15 of the judgment of the first instance (the second 8 to third 16 of the judgment). Thus, this part of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“The instant contract” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

A) The form of quality assurance of the instant contract is simple form (I). The special terms and conditions of the contract for the manufacture and purchase of the goods included in the said contract include the following: “B (Plaintiffs) shall guarantee that the contract item conforms to all the items of the applicable specifications (or the purchase terms, specifications, and specifications); and at the time the supervision and quality assurance agency of A (Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration) shall be verified at the time of confirmation by the agency supervising the quality assurance; and “B shall submit the documents (quality assurance, final product inspection and test report) necessary for the quality assurance of B or the documents issued by an authorized agency for the quality assurance to the quality assurance agency; “The delivery shall be sealed after inspection by the inspector of A; the delivery shall be completed after inspection by the latter; and “B shall be delivered after inspection by the quality assurance agency as determined by A.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below, the third 19 to the fifth 16th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

B) ① The instant test report was modified by the Plaintiffs, which was subcontracted with the instant slick paper produced by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were the Plaintiffs.

arrow