1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Disposition of dismissal of unjust enterprisers by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2016.

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition by the court are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the second instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 through 9 shall be carried out in the following manner:

A person shall be appointed.

D. On November 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) led the Plaintiff to the instant collaborative act and was awarded a successful bid; (b) rendered a disposition under Article 27(1) of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 14038, Mar. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former State Contracts Act”); (c) Article 76(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27475, Sep. 2, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (d) Article 76(1) and [Attachment 2] subparagraph 9(c) of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 573, Sept. 23, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the restriction on the restriction on the participation in the State by 24 months [Attachment 19(10)]

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4. The following shall be added to the following:

Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] subparag. 9(c) of the former Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act on the basis of the Defendant’s notice on the instant disposition for additional disposition and alteration of the grounds for the disposition. According to this, the Defendant could only be subject to the Plaintiff’s restriction on the restriction on participation in the tendering procedure for six months.

Nevertheless, the defendant is after the disposition of this case.