1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against plaintiffs B and D shall be revoked.

2. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claims filed by Plaintiffs B and D.

We examine whether the part of the plaintiff B and D claims in the lawsuit in this case is legitimate and ex officio the defendant issued an administrative disposition that limits the qualification to participate in bidding against the plaintiff B and D.

Plaintiff

B and D’s written statement stating that “unfair businessman” is a disposition of restriction on participation in a tendering procedure that he/she received (Article 1-1-2 of the Evidence A) includes the business registration number, corporate registration number, address, representative, resident registration number, type of business, and license registration number of the Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) and the Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in the column for “trade name or the name of the corporation,” and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”), respectively.

Therefore, the name and resident registration number of the plaintiff B and D in the representative column of the improper businessman in the above administrative disposition is merely for specifying the representative of the plaintiff company, and it cannot be deemed that there was a disposition against the plaintiff B and D separately from the disposition against the plaintiff company.

In addition, Article 92 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contract Act”) provides for the grounds for the restriction on participation in a corporation where a bidder is a corporation. Article 92 (4) and (1) of the same Act provides for the grounds for the restriction on participation in a corporation. The above administrative disposition only provides for the "Article 92 (1) 18" and Article 92 (4) does not provide for the "Article 92 (4).

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the defendant merely imposed restrictions on qualification for participation in bidding on the plaintiff company through the above administrative disposition and did not impose any measure on each representative's individual.

Furthermore, the effect of the restriction on participation in the company against the plaintiff is against the plaintiff B and D.