1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: (a) the court shall revise “Article 76(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act” by “Article 76(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act,” and (b) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion made in this court is identical to the part against the Plaintiff in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion made by the Plaintiff in this court, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant collusion acts is merely an act of personal deviation of some employees belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the Defendant’s H production bid since each of the instant collusion act was discovered, and there was no incentive to engage in such collusion in the future, and prior to the instant case, there was no history to engage in a bid collusion, and the Plaintiff’s sales related to each of the instant collusion acts are only 2% of the total sales, etc., the Plaintiff does not constitute an “clearly” corporation, which does not constitute an act of fair competition or appropriate implementation of a contract under Article 39(2)

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Judgment

Article 39(2) of the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions provides that "a public corporation or quasi-governmental institution may restrict participation in bidding for a certain period of not more than two years to a person, corporation, organization, etc. which is judged obviously likely to undermine fair competition or the proper performance of a contract." Thus, the phrase "it is obvious that it would prejudice fair competition or the proper performance of a contract" refers to a party to a public corporation or quasi-governmental institution's act in the course of concluding a contract and executing the contract, thereby impairing the fairness and appropriateness of the contract and impairing the purpose of the contract to achieve

The Constitutional Court on August 2017.