1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) are companies engaged in digital content production, and their major shareholders C and their families hold 100% of the Plaintiff’s shares and 75% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the Plaintiff holds 25% of the Plaintiff’s shares.

B. On October 23, 2011, the Daegu Local Government Procurement Service publicly announced the bidding of D’s “D” (hereinafter “instant bidding”) on the website (hereinafter “instant bidding”). The Plaintiff and B participated in the instant bidding, and the Plaintiff was determined as the successful bidder around November 201.

C. On October 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid by leading collusion in the instant bid” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 92(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25140, Feb. 5, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act”), and Article 76 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 348, Mar. 15, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contracts Act”).

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 9, and 10 certificates (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 76(4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Contract Act provides that the restriction period may be mitigated in extenuating circumstances in cases where the restriction of qualification for participation in bidding is imposed on the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the Plaintiff inevitably committed collusion in accordance with the inducement or instruction of an end-user institution to prevent the failure of the bid in this case and thereby, the Plaintiff’s act may be likely to interfere with the fair enforcement of competition or the appropriate implementation of a contract.