1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition and deletion as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The number of winning the bid of the plaintiff in the second parallel 4 cases is 9 cases. "The number of winning the bid of the plaintiff who has the authority to impose sanctions against the defendant shall be 3 cases."

Part 6, Paragraph 8, "won," and the number of successful bidders with the authority to impose sanctions against the defendant is attached to the attached Form.

2. Three cases, such as the description (total amount of 118,643,140 won).

The following is added to the 6th page 18. The defendant with the authority to issue and dispose of the bid subject to the disposition of the instant case. 1) As to the bid case where the plaintiff who is the subject of the disposition of the instant case led to collusion, the first instance court claimed that the bid amount was KRW 729,075,232, as stated in the instant indictment, but the number of successful bidders for which the defendant's authority to issue sanctions is recognized in the first instance trial are attached to the number of successful bidders.

2. Three cases, such as the description, have been identified as 18,643,140 won in total.

According to the attachment

2. In the case of each of the bids mentioned above, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid through the instant collusion in the tender conducted by the Defendant with the State agency, public corporation, or quasi-governmental institution as an end-user institution. Thus, the Defendant has the authority to restrict the participation of unjust enterprisers in each of the above bids in accordance with Article 27 of the former State Contracts Act and Article 4

The 6th page 19 of the 19th page "(1)" is changed to 2).

The 8th page 4 is as follows.

Although the number of successful bidders who are entitled to dispose of the defendant is attached Form

2. Although there are only three cases, as described in the statement, the Plaintiff appears to have "Class 8, 10, 2, 2, and 3."