1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the explanation on this part of the disposition are as follows: ① Article 10 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “the State Contract Act”) and Article 42 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in Chapter 3 through 29 of the first instance judgment; ② Article 39 of the former Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “the Act on the Management of Public Institutions”); Article 6 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. 571, Sept. 12, 2016; hereinafter “former Rules on Contract Affairs”); Article 10 of the State Contracts Act; Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26321, Jun. 22, 2015); ② Article 5 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party; and Article 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether limitation of qualification to participate in bidding under the Plaintiff’s assertion-related laws should be determined individually for each bidding.

However, on September 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that restricts qualification for participation in bidding on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who was awarded a successful bid by leading collusion in bidding 1 through 10,” pursuant to the former Contract Affairs Rules, etc.

Since the 10th bidding which the Plaintiff participated in the 10th bidding was terminated on September 7, 2009, the instant disposition was subsequently amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; and was enforced on September 3, 2016; and was amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017.

F. The State Contracts Act (hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”).

The exclusion period of the seven-year period prescribed by Article 27(4) is limited and illegal.

(b) relevant legislation;