1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The improper businessman for a period of 24 months that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2016.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment of first instance excluding the part of the judgment of first instance excluding the part of the judgment 4. conclusion), and such judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The prior meaning of the modified part refers to “a person who leads to collusion” under Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] subparag. 9(a) and (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act, so it can be deemed that “a person who led to collusion” refers to “a person who, by presenting specific contents that undermine the fairness of competitive bidding such as presenting the scope of the bid price in a tendering procedure or promising a successful bidder, presents the relevant person’s participation or brings in assistance.”

In addition, administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an indivative administrative disposition, must be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition, and even in cases where a teleological interpretation is permitted taking into account the legislative intent and purpose of such administrative laws and regulations, it shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the language and text thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du47686, Nov. 24, 2016; 2017Du33824, Jun. 29, 2017; 2016Du64982, Feb. 28, 2018).

Therefore, the “person who led the collusion” is not limited to the “participation in the collusion” but also required to proceed to the “act of leading the collusion,” and thus, the Defendant who led the collusion is also obliged to sufficiently prove the fact that the Plaintiff led the collusion.

At this time,