beta
Text
1. The Defendant imposed sanctions against the Plaintiff on September 24, 2014 (the period of sanctions against unjust enterprisers: October 2, 2014 to April 1, 2015).
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase contract with the Defendant (Anuclear headquarters) to supply KRW 34,328,800 (hereinafter “instant coolant equipment, etc.”) with one air conditioners (Refrier Mitor, DS-207P), and three air conditioners (Refrier Gror, TG-4700-1GWA), respectively (hereinafter “instant goods purchase contract”).
B. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received one copy of the refrigerants and one copy of the test report in the name of the head of D quality department E (hereinafter “instant test report”) from the refrigerants B (operator C), which is the subfrigerants, and supplied the instant refrigerator to the Defendant on December 31, 2012, attaching the instant test report.
C. Since then, the Defendant confirmed that the instant test report was forged, and on September 24, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff constituted “a person who forged, altered, or fraudulently submitted documents relating to tendering or contract or who submitted false documents,” Article 39 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”); Article 15 of the former Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 375, Nov. 18, 2013; hereinafter “former Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations”); Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; Article 76(1) [Attachment 10 (hereinafter “instant Disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 6, and 7-1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The “documents regarding contracts” under Article 76(1)8 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act is limited to the documents that affect the conclusion of the contract.