1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for improvement and supplementation of pressure-type elevators and for new elevator manufacturing and installation (hereinafter “instant contract”) and supplied 129 elevators in total from June 24, 2010 to March 21, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, the Defendant notified the Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the result of audit that the surveillance camera installed inside the 46 elevator (hereinafter referred to as “CCTV”) from among elevators installed under the instant contract falls short of the standards specified in the contract. On November 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2013 restricting the Plaintiff’s qualification for participation in unjust enterprisers for one month (from November 29, 2013 to December 28, 2013).

(2) According to Article 64-2(3) of the Local Public Enterprises Act, which is the Act on the Grounds of Disposition in this case, the existence of the Plaintiff’s grounds for disposition as to whether the disposition in this case is legitimate or not, the right to participate in the bidding can be restricted against a person who is judged likely to interfere with fair competition or appropriate implementation of the contract. (1) The Plaintiff was established with the same model as the surveillance camera already installed by another company as the supervisor’s advice, after inquiring the Defendant’s public supervisor of the surveillance camera model installed in the instant elevator. (2) Although the Plaintiff was a model of surveillance camera as used in the instant elevator, it is different from the specifications of the specifications for the instant elevator, it does not interfere with the purpose of the instant contract. (3) The Plaintiff was subject to sanctions for production of the elevator for about 20 years.