logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.24 2015구합2149
부정당업자 제재처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At port, notice of tender was given regarding the supply of C Maintenance and Repair Services (hereinafter “instant services”) in 2014.

The Plaintiff participated in the said bidding and was selected as a successful bidder. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to supply the instant service with the contract amount of KRW 114,195,00 (including value-added tax) during the contract performance period from January 27, 2014 to January 26, 2015, and to change the contract amount of KRW 111,37,920 on February 3, 2014 to KRW 111,37,920.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) b.

On August 5, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant service to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) without the Defendant’s approval, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification for participation in bidding (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for five months (from August 5, 2015 to January 4, 2016) of the former Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (amended by Act No. 12000, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Local Contract Act”); and Article 92(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contract Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25140, Feb. 5, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Contract Act”).

C. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Standing Committee on the Administrative Appeals for Gyeonggi-do, which was dismissed on October 26, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 6, 11 through 13, Eul’s 1 and 9(including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion 1 concluded a subcontract with D on the instant service, but rescinded the subcontract because D failed to satisfy the terms and conditions of the contract performance, and E.

arrow