beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s disposition restricting participation in bidding against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2015.
Reasons
1. Contract price (unit price x quantity) contract price (unit price x unit price x 5,30D-A 5,390 13,600 x 753,304,00 3,2278,743,530 Da230-A 71,02 13,809,870 9740, 385240, 3847, 7770, 4770 won x 540, 4547, 479, 2304, 470, 4754, 405, 4740, 4745, 470, 470, 1947, 1407, 307, 1407, 5307, 5305, 258, 1984, 257, 1968
A. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation requested the Defendant to purchase 12 elementary, middle, and high schools, such as C Elementary, and high schools newly constructed within the development project area, in order to install a emulative complex of emulsion (culing) and a emulative complex of emulsion (hereinafter referred to as “metallic product”).
Accordingly, on March 17, 2015, the Defendant purchased the Plaintiff and metal window 2 million km at the contract price of KRW 31 billion, but the delivery condition was concluded with the on-site installation map, the delivery place was the goods contract (unit price contract for a third party) at the designated place of the demanding administrative agency. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract to purchase metal price of KRW 2170,740 million at the contract price of KRW 3027,000,000 on the same delivery condition as the above goods contract.
The sum of the contract quantity, unit price, installation cost and the total amount by product of metal windows used in the new construction of the above 12 elementary, middle and high schools shall be as follows:
B. The Plaintiff had E Co., Ltd. (F) (hereinafter “F”), a sports area agency of the Plaintiff’s sports area (on November 27, 2015, changed its trade name to F Co., Ltd.); and F had G (trade name: H), I (J), K (trade name: L), M (trade name: N),O (trade name): Q (N) and Q (hereinafter “H, etc.) perform the construction of a window according to the delivery conditions of the instant goods contract.
C. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant did not approve by the ordering authority during the process of performing the instant contract.