logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.27 2015구합12595
입찰참가자격제한조치처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the business of manufacturing sports equipment and supplies, play equipment, landscaping facilities, etc. with the trade name of two weeks from B, and the Defendant is a quasi-governmental institution under Article 5 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”).

B. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 39(2) and (3) of the Public Institutions Operation Act, Article 15 of the former Rules on Contracts to Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Organizations (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 571, Sept. 12, 2016; hereinafter “former Rules on Contract Affairs”); Article 76(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26829, Dec. 31, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act”); Article 76(1)7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 573, Sep. 23, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act”) in accordance with Article 76 of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of the plaintiff's collaborative act is a public institution's participation in the bidding to secure business experience by the F representative G, and the plaintiff did not have been awarded a bid by leading the collusion, and it is impossible for a specific business entity to receive the bid price in collusion with the bid price at the present public institution's bid rate. 2) The plaintiff was not led by the plaintiff, and H et al. who was subject to the disposition of the restriction on participation in the bidding for three months as the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of the restriction on participation in the bidding for three months. In addition to the disposition in this case,

arrow