The case holding that a restriction of participation in bidding against a subcontractor without the government's approval is illegal against the scope of discretion.

Article 89 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 1, 2011) provides a subcontract to (A) at will after the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction work, and he again provided a subcontract to (B) to (B) in violation of Article 89 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act. However, the Plaintiff Company was awarded a subcontract for construction of facilities because it has difficulty in procuring unfavorable geographical conditions and necessary figures, materials, etc. as a faithful company that actively participated in the military facility construction work for more than five years after obtaining a comprehensive construction license, and then the construction work

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act

Youngjin Construction Company

The Minister of National Defense

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu668 delivered on April 19, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below, on its reasoning, ordered the construction of bath facilities to the non-party 1 at will after being awarded a contract for the construction of bath facilities, and the non-party 1 awarded a subcontract again to the non-party 2, but it is recognized that the non-party 1 violated Article 89 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act, but the plaintiff company awarded a subcontract for construction of facilities to the non-party 1 because it has difficulty in procuring disadvantageous geographical conditions and necessary figures, materials, etc. as a faithful company actively participating in the military facility construction with a comprehensive construction license for not less than five years, or because the construction is not very likely to be properly carried out, the plaintiff did not execute the construction again again and completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract. Thus, the defendant's disposition to restrict the plaintiff's bid qualification for one year or more is an illegal administrative disposition beyond the scope of discretion.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below as above are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of discretion or incomplete deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju