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.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “The Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act” to be referred to the second fiveth fiveth of the judgment of the first instance among the judgments is as follows: “The Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the State Contract Act”)” to be referred to “the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”)” to be referred to as “the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 11547, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “State Contract Act”)” to be referred to as “the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party” to be referred to in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 76(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provides that qualification for participation in bidding shall be limited only where there is an unlawful act, such as “a party to a contract, etc., his agent, manager, or user,” etc., and the Plaintiff was supplied by the main director of the contract, and delivered the instant military movement uniforms to the Defendant, without knowing that the tax invoice issued by C was false, and was presented to B, and did not allow B to deliver the instant military movement uniforms by lending the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant. Therefore, even if B issued a false tax invoice and submitted the said tax invoice to the Defendant, the instant disposition that only a third party, who is not the Plaintiff’s agent, manager, and employee, considered the Plaintiff as the ground for disposition against the Plaintiff is unlawful.2) As a result of verifying the cost for the contract price (budgeted price) of the instant contract, the said contract price is determined higher than the appropriate cost.