2017Nu54274 Requests for revocation of disposition, such as revocation of qualifications to participate in competitive tendering process open only to small and medium entrepreneurs

A Stock Company

The Minister of SMEs and Startups

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap83792 decided June 8, 2017

November 21, 2017

April 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked on December 8, 2016 the plaintiff's qualification to participate in competitive tendering process open only to small and medium enterprises and revoked the disposition for six months for restriction on the acquisition of participation eligibility.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

According to the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the bidding of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the bidding of this case") in the third sentence (excluding the main part), shall be dismissed as "the bidding of this case" (as shown in the attached Table; hereinafter referred to as "the bidding of this case"), and the attached table of this judgment shall be added to this judgment.

○ The following is the 8th of the first instance judgment, and the following is added thereto:

(3) Unlike that Article 76(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provides that "a party to a contract, bidder, or a person who submits a quotation through the Electronic Procurement System" is eligible to participate in a competitive bidding, and Article 8(3) of the former Act on the Development of Market Markets provides that "an enterprise participating in a competitive bidding between small and medium enterprises" is limited to a case where a small and medium enterprise engaged in an unfair act, such as collusion." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the first public notice of the competitive bidding was made but the act of causing a specific person to enter into a negotiated contract by hindering the formation of competitive bidding itself through collusion constitutes "an unfair act, such as collusion, by a small and medium enterprise owner participating in a competitive bidding among small and medium enterprises" under Article 8(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Market Markets. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the member of the instant case is "a case where a small and medium enterprise owner who intentionally participated in a competitive bidding, who intentionally failed to select a successful bidder exceeding the expected price."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Awards and decorations for judges;

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judge Cho Jae-soo

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.