1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(b) Related statutes;

C. 1) The reasoning for this court’s explanation as to whether this case’s performance confirmation personnel constitutes false documents is identical to that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The number of pages 2, 8-10 shall be as follows:

“Plaintiff (formerly changed: High-Electric Power Technology Co., Ltd.)” means Young Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Cheongan”) on August 22, 2012.

(1) From the perspective of the former Enforcement Decree of the Electrical Construction Business Act, the part of the electrical construction business among the business of Cheongman was divided and merged on October 15, 2012, and completed a merger by split and merger registration, and accordingly succeeds to the status of the Cheongman Electrical Construction Business Act pursuant to Article 7(1)3 of the Electrical Construction Business Act and Article 32(5) of the Electrical Construction Business Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Electrical Construction Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Industry and Energy No. 193, Jun. 13,

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 19(4), “each description” (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be added to “each description” following the 4th page 16 of the Act.

Part 10: (a) add “Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions” (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 571, Sept. 12, 2016) to “Rules on Contract Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions”; and (b) read “ February 3, 2016” as “ March 2, 2016.”

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes “a juristic person that is obviously likely to undermine fair competition or appropriate implementation of a contract” (A) Article 39(2) of the Public Institutions Operation Act may restrict the Plaintiff’s qualification for participation in bidding for a certain period of up to two years against a juristic person that is obviously deemed to interfere with fair enforcement or appropriate implementation of a contract.