1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition restricting participation in bidding on November 22, 2018 against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "Witness L" of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as " witness L of the court of first instance".

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff 1’s assertion that procedural illegality is based on an illegal administrative investigation as follows. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful. (A) The Defendant violating Article 17 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations against Plaintiff on July 31, 2018 and the same year.

8. 30. In conducting an on-site investigation to the plaintiff, the procedures for prior notification under the main sentence of Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations were lacking.

Considering the characteristics of the product, such as the size and manufacturing period of the clothes lecture, which was the subject of the investigation, and the majority of the instant enterprises, the Plaintiff cannot destroy evidence within seven days or re-processed the product, and thus does not constitute a case where prior notification of Article 17(1) proviso of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations may be omitted.

Even if the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations Article 17 (1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, prior notification procedures may be omitted.

Even if the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the purpose of the administrative investigation verbally.

B. Violation of Article 19 of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations against the instant companies: ① the Defendant demanded the instant companies to submit data on August 23, 2018; and on August 30, 2018, the Defendant did not undergo the prior notification procedure provided for in Article 19(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations.

The prior notification procedure under Article 19(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations may not be omitted even if the company of this case, which is a third party, consents to the administrative investigation, and the said company cannot be deemed to have voluntarily consented to the administrative investigation of the

② In accordance with Article 19(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the Defendant, prior to the determination of the result of the investigation of the instant company, a third party, to the Plaintiff.