beta
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 plaintiffs, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, J Co., Ltd. and K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "stock company" in the names of each company) are members of M Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as "L") as manufacturers.
At the request of the procuring entity, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with a multiple contracting entities using the Internet SPS bid system (www.g2b.go.k) and displays the list of goods in the Internet integrated shopping mall at the request of the procuring entity, the Plaintiff refers to a contract with the procuring entity to supply goods through the Internet integrated shopping mall whenever necessary at each procuring entity. The contracting entity means a contract with the procuring entity to supply goods to the procuring entity.
The English weak is Mulle A MAS.
(hereinafter “Mas”) with respect to L purchase bid ordered by the two-stage competitive method, a bidding collusion was conducted in the government-funded competitive bidding in such a way that, in consultation with the above L manufacturers, the members, from January 31, 2012 to May 12, 2016, the companies that received the request from the end-user institution in advance, the companies that were to be supplied by the end-user institution, the sellers, and the amount of the proposal determined and shared and submitted the proposal as well as the submission of the proposal to the extent that the pre-determined contractor would be selected as the delivery, and the pre-determined contractor would be selected as the delivery supplier.
(hereinafter “instant collusion”). B.
Article 27(1)2 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), Article 76(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on November 3, 2016, on the grounds that the Plaintiff participated in the instant collusion and the Plaintiff’s total 24 times (the total amount of successful bid KRW 8,970,732,356) constituted “the person who led the successful bid” by actively executing his/her successful bid.