2010Nu11957 Revocation of the designation of defense contractor

A Stock Company

The Minister of Knowledge Economy

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap50855 decided March 25, 2010

September 8, 2010

October 13, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The revocation of the designation of a defense contractor against the plaintiff on October 27, 2009 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why a member of the party states on this case is as follows. Thus, the part as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In accordance with Article 48 (3) of the Defense Acquisition Program Act, the designation of defense materials can be revoked after consultation with the Minister of Knowledge Economy. The Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, prior to the revocation of the designation of defense materials of this case, shall hear the opinion of the defendant about the revocation of the designation of defense materials for the military branch line prior to the revocation of the designation of defense materials of this case, and shall not be bound by the results of consultation, and in full view of the purport of the whole pleading in the statement No. 4, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration established a policy to introduce limited competitive bidding since 2010, and it can be recognized that the measures to guarantee quality in advance have been implemented since the introduction of limited competitive bidding since the objective verification of the possibility of manufacture of other companies than the plaintiff, etc. are internally prepared and decided to revoke the designation of defense materials of this case. Accordingly, the Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, according to this, shall not be bound by the consultation procedures necessary for the revocation of the designation of defense materials under the Defense Acquisition Program Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the designation of the Defense Agency and the Agency for Defense Agency."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Sang-young

Judges Kim Gin-jin