logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.18 2015누1856
시정명령취소
Text

1. Unfair competition shall be conducted in such a manner as to agree on the construction tools to receive a successful tender in the Schedule of Correction 1.

Reasons

1. Before remanding the scope of the trial, this court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the part of ordering “Prohibition of Unfair Competitions by Agreement on Construction Tools Eligible for Successful Bidder” as stipulated in attached Form 1 of the Plaintiff’s corrective order, and dismissed the remainder of the claim for revocation of the corrective order

The plaintiff and the defendant respectively appealed to the part against which they lost. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the part against the defendant was reversed and remanded to this court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the defendant.

2. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition (applicable to recognition), A1, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff’s unfair collaborative act (1) with respect to the Plaintiff’s “the 4th 4th diversary suicide project” is a project determined by the 3rd Fiscal Development Committee held on December 15, 2008, which was held on December 15, 2008, and the total project cost is 22.2 trillion won including the 16.9 trillion won and the 5.3 trillion won directly connected project.

On December 12, 2008, the Master Plan for the 4 large river project started by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to provide services to the Construction Technology Research Institute, and collected opinions through regional briefing sessions, expert advice, public hearings, etc. and finally announced on June 8, 2009.

(2) The Plaintiff’s unfair collaborative act is “The construction project of Hando Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do do Do Do do Do do Do do Do do do Do do do Do do do do Do do do do Do do do Do do Do do do Do do Do do Do do Do do , and the Plaintiff agreed on the share of total construction cost

) An unfair collaborative act as provided in Article 19(1)3 (a) was jointly carried out.

B. The Defendant’s corrective order against the Plaintiff on August 31, 2012, against 16 construction companies including the Plaintiff, the 4th lecture around April 2009.

arrow