1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the dismissal of the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Haon portion】 4 Myeon 2 to 8 Haon are as follows:

“1) Bidding collusion in a public procurement market is an act that distorts or damages the market economy order, and at the same time causes losses to the national finance and undermining the quality of the goods procured, and is an act that must be strictly regulated to establish fairness in tendering order.

The fair competition order is established by excluding participation qualification of unjust enterprisers who disrupt fair bidding and contract order, and there is a high demand for public interest to maintain the market economy order and promote free competition through eradicating collusion.

2) The Plaintiff received proposals and bid prices from B so that B may be awarded a successful bid in the instant bid, thereby having B participate in the instant tender, thereby getting B to be selected as a priority bidder in the instant tender.

In other words, even though only one enterprise actually participates in the bidding and the competition cannot be established in the bidding of this case, the plaintiff's failure to prevent the bid, and caused B to determine the successful bidder price as a successful bidder, thereby infringing on fairness in the bidding of this case. The degree of illegality is not weak.

Whether the Plaintiff became aware of an agreement between B, G, and H does not affect the establishment of collusion.

3) The plaintiff did not have economic benefits from collusion in the bidding of this case.

The argument is asserted.

However, from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, B is a trading partner that accounts for 10% of the total sales of the Plaintiff, and is in the instant bidding.