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. Details of disposition;

A. On October 19, 2018, the Defendant, a public corporation, as prescribed by the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”), announced a public tender for items C and C by means of a limited competitive bid among small and medium enterprises and a minimum competitive bid method (electronic bid method).

(hereinafter “instant tender”). (b)

At around 12:45 on October 29, 2018, two companies including the Plaintiff (trade name: D) participated, and the Defendant selected the Plaintiff as the successful bidder who bided at the lowest price (61,450,400 won). However, on October 29, 2018, the Plaintiff knew that “the Defendant renounced the successful bid under the instant tender” by wire to the Defendant at around 16:00 on October 29, 2018.

C. On March 14, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract without justifiable grounds, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, who was selected as a successful bidder of the instant tender,” Article 39 of the Public Institutions Operation Act; (b) Article 15 of the Rules on Contracts to Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions; (c) Article 27(1)8(b) of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party; (d) Article 76(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and (e) Article 76 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act from March 15,

9. Until 14. A disposition of restricting participation in bidding for six months was taken.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 4, 7(including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff, on the date of selection of the bid price of this case as the successful bidder of this case, expressed his intention of cancelling the bid on the ground that there was an error in the bid price of this case. Thus, the bid of this case was null and void as stipulated in Article 12 subparagraph 6 of the purchase of goods (production) tender notice, which is the contract established by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the bid of this case is valid