logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.06 2016누80658
입찰참가자격제한처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding some contents and adding some contents as follows. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance " June 13, 2016" shall be read as " June 10, 2016" in the third part of the judgment of the court of second instance.

The third-party 11 to 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

【Plaintiff’s subjective perception is required for the submission of false documents. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant certificate of performance was made up of the number of employees, and thus, it cannot be deemed the submission of false documents. However, the sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative laws and regulations are sanctions based on objective facts, i.e., the violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, it does not require a perpetrator’s intentional intent or negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du6700, Dec. 24, 2014). Therefore, insofar as the instant certificate of performance submitted by the Plaintiff is found to be false, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the ground of “Submission of False Tender Documents” is justifiable.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that his employee did not know the fact that the Plaintiff, who supplied lighting lighting, etc. for night search as a matter of course, was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had produced and supplied the power generator prior to the instant bid, and thus, it is difficult to accept the foregoing assertion on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any production and supply of the power generator prior to the instant bid.

In this case, the instant performance certificate is considerably important documents, and it is clear whether it is true in submitting it.

arrow